Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 437 F.3d 1309 - Digital Control Incorporated v. Charles Machine Works

Digital Control Incorporated v. Charles Machine Works’s Empirical Analysis

437 F.3d 1309 · 2006

Citation profile

150
cited by 150 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc

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

  1. “[a] prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpat-entable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider it important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatenta-bility relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.”
    7 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.