Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.3d 1360 - Golan v. Pingel Enterprise, Inc.

Golan v. Pingel Enterprise, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.3d 1360 · 2002

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Federal precedent is that communication to possible infringers concerning patent rights is not improper if the patent holder has a good faith belief in the accuracy of the communication. Although “bad faith” may encompass subjective as well as objective considerations, and the patent holder’s notice is not irrelevant to a determination of bad faith, a competitive commercial purpose is not of itself improper, and bad faith is not supported when the information is objectively accurate. In general, a threshold showing of incorrectness or falsity, or disregard for either, is required in order to find bad faith in the communication of information about the existence or pendency of patent rights. Indeed, a patentee, acting in good faith on its belief as to the nature and scope of its rights, is fully permitted to press those rights “even though he may misconceive what those rights are.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]o survive summary judgment, [Defendant] must present affirmative evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that [Plaintiff] acted in bad faith, in light of the burden of clear and convincing evidence that will adhere at trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a presumption that the assertion of a duly granted patent is made in good faith.”
    2 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.