Depuy Spine Inc Gmbh v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc Usa’s Empirical Analysis
469 F.3d 1005 · 2006
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (2009), Voda v. Cordis Corp. (2008)
18 federal appellate · 22 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. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A holding that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied to an accused device because it 'vitiates' a claim limitation is nothing more than a conclusion that the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could conclude that an element of an accused device is equivalent to an element called for in the claim, or that the theory of equivalence to support the conclusion of infringement otherwise lacks legal sufficiency.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is important to note that when we have held that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied to an accused device because it “vitiates” a claim limitation, it was not to hold that the doctrine is always foreclosed whenever a claim limitation does not literally read on an element of an accused device; such an interpretation of the “all elements” rule would swallow the doctrine of equivalents entirely. “[A]ny analysis of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents necessarily deals with subject matter that is ‘beyond,’ ‘ignored’ by, and not included in the literal scope of a claim.” A holding that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied to an accused device because it “vitiates” a claim limitation is nothing more than a conclusion that the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could conclude that an element of an accused device is equivalent to an element called for in the claim, or that the theory of equivalence to sup port the conclusion of infringement otherwise lacks legal sufficiency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[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. Id.”
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.