Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 514 · 1993
Citation profile
6 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. · Young Engineers, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission · C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. · Ab Dick Company v. Burroughs Corporation
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Mounting means for a leadless chip carrier comprising: (a) base support means having first and second oppositely disposed major faces; (b) a plurality of axially elongated conductive pins passing transversely through said base support means substantially perpendicular to said first and second major faces, the opposed inner edges of the ends of said pins extending from said first major face arranged to define a cavity substantially conforming to at least two oppositely disposed lateral peripheral dimensions of said leadless chip carrier in a plane parallel with said first major face and the inner edges of said pins converging slightly inwardly with distance from said first major face; and (c) unitary means operable independently of said leadless chip carrier reciprocally moveable axially with respect to said pins and coacting with said opposed inner edges of said pins for uniformly spreading the ends of said pins extending from said first major face to permit the insertion of a lead-less chip carrier therebetween.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A second defendant is entitled to the benefit of a judgment issued against the plaintiff in favor of a first defendant in prior litigation on the same issues.... [Wjhere a determination of the scope of patent claims was made in a prior case, and the determination was essential to the judgment there on the issue of infringement, there is collateral estoppel in a later case on the scope of such claims, i.e., the determined scope cannot be changed.”
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.