Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC.’s Empirical Analysis
269 F.3d 1321 · 2001
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. (2005), Schering Corporation v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (2003)
16 federal appellate · 9 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Holmes v. United States · Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. · City of Los Angeles v. Department of Transportation · Tilghman v. Proctor · Emmons v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he question of whether an invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale is a matter of Federal Circuit law, to be analyzed under the law of contracts as generally understood. To hold otherwise would potentially mean that a patent could be invalid in one state, when the patentee’s actions amounted to an offer under the laws of that state, and valid in a second state, when the same actions did not amount to an offer under the laws of that second state. Such a result is clearly incompatible with a uniform national patent system.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale .... Second, the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied in at least two ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the invention that [wa]s the subject matter of the offer for sale must satisfy each claim limitation of the patent, though it may do so inherently.”
1 later decision 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.