Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions

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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no set formula for determining whether a finding of equivalence would vitiate a claim limitation, and thereby violate the all limitations rule. Rather, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances of each case and determine whether the alleged equivalent can be fairly characterized as an insubstantial change from the claimed subject matter without rendering the pertinent limitation meaningless.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 398 F. Supp. 2d 1081 - Wham-O, Inc. v. Sport Dimension, Inc. · 92 Fed. Cl. 761 - TDM America, LLC v. United States

2. “[a] skilled patent drafter would foresee the limiting potential of the “over said slot” limitation. No subtlety of language or complexity of the technology, nor any subsequent change in the state of the art, such as later-developed technology, obfuscated the significance of this limitation at the time of its incorporation into the claim. If [the patentee] desired broad patent protection for any container that performed a function similar to its claimed container, it could have sought claims with fewer structural encumbrances.... Instead, [the patentee] left the PTO with manifestly limited claims that it now seeks to expand through the doctrine of equivalents.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Honeywell International, Inc. v. United States · Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Amersham PLC

3. “[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty. If patents were always interpreted by their literal terms, their value would be greatly diminished. Unimportant and insubstantial substitutes for certain elements could defeat the patent, and its value to inventors could be destroyed by simple acts of copying.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Honeywell International, Inc. v. United States · 584 F. Supp. 2d 1126 - Fisher-Barton Blades, Inc. v. Blount, Inc.