Exxon Research and Engineering Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
265 F.3d 1371 · 2001
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 51 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co. · Wl Gore Associates Inc v. Garlock Inc · Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not sufficiently precise to permit a potential competitor to determine whether or not he is infringing.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification.” A claim is not indefinite merely because it is difficult to construe. To be indefinite, a claim term must be such that “no narrowing construction can properly be adopted” to interpret the claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.