Playtex Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 901 · 2005
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2005), Conoco Inc Conoco Specialty Products Inc v. Energy & Environmental International Lc B N (2006)
10 federal appellate · 16 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The term ‘substantial’ is a meaningful modifier implying ‘approximate,’ rather than ‘perfect.’ ” Liquid Dynamics [Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2004)]. But the definition of “substantially flattened surfaces” adopted by.the district court introduces a numerical tolerance to the flatness of the gripping area surfaces of the claimed applicator. That reading contradicts the recent precedent of this court, interpreting such terms of degree. In Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2003), we refused to impose a precise numeric constraint on the term “substantially uniform thickness,” noting that the proper interpretation of this term was “of largely or approximately uniform thickness” unless something in the prosecution history imposed the “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” needed for narrowing beyond this plain-language interpretation. Moreover, in Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298 (Fed.Cir.2003), we held that “the phrase ‘generally parallel’ envisions some amount of deviation from exactly parallel,” and that “words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims ‘to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’ ” Id. at 1311 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A fundamental rule of claim construction is that terms in a patent document are construed with the meaning with which they are presented in the patent document. Thus claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part... [I]t is axiomatic that claims, not the specification embodiments, define the scope of protection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so.”
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.