Application of Virgil W. Vogel and Paul W. Vogel’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials America, Inc. (1996)
10 federal appellate · 13 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 In re Eckel · Application of William G. Baird, Jr., Carl A. Lindstrom, Jr., Arthur L. Besse, Jr., and Donald J. D'EntrEmont · In re Boylan · In re Aldrich · Application of Carl E. Ockert (Five Cases)
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A good test, and probably the only objective test, for “same invention,” is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“By “same invention” we mean identical subject matter. Thus, the invention defined by a claim reciting “halogen” is not the same as that defined by a claim reciting “chlorine,” because the former is broader than the latter. On the other hand, claims may be differently worded and still define the same invention. Thus a claim reciting a length of “thirty-six inches” defines the same invention as a claim reciting a length of “three feet,” if all other limitations are identical ... A good test, and probably the only objective test, for “same invention,” is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A claim is a group of words defining only the boundary of the patent monopoly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.