← 541 F.2d 593 - The National Rolled Thread Die Company v. E. W. Ferry Screw Products, Inc., the National Rolled Thread Die Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee. v. E. W. Ferry Screw Products, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants

The National Rolled Thread Die Company v. E. W. Ferry Screw Products, Inc., the National Rolled Thread Die Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee. v. E. W. Ferry Screw Products, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants’s Empirical Analysis

541 F.2d 593 · 1976

Citation profile

cited by 18 later decisions

June 1985

most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Topsy's International, Inc. v. Seiffer

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

“Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 447 F. Supp. 1278 - Pettibone Corp. v. Fargo Machine & Tool Co.
“Infringement should not be determined by a mere decision that the terms of a claim of a valid patent are applicable to the defendant’s device. Two things are not necessarily similar in a practical sense because the same words are applicable to each.... There is no magic in a name, nor in a claim; that the words preferred by a patentee to define his invention apply literally to another’s device suggests, but does not prove, infringement; there must be a substantial identity, to justify that conclusion of law. (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Mead Digital Systems, Inc. Mead Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. A.B. Dick Company and Gould, Inc., Cross-Appellees
“level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. TWM Manufacturing Co. v. Dura Corp.

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.