Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 967 · 1995
Citation profile
364 federal appellate · 576 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,259 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996), Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc (1996)
364 federal appellate · 576 district · 3 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 151 · 35 U.S.C. § 154
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
Cited together with MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic 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 2,259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.”
17 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.