Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 69 · 1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987), Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation (1984)
4 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · United States v. Adams · Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Difronzo v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree that extrinsic evidence was properly admitted to flesh out the meaning [the contract]. `Where contractual language is unclear and suggests several speculative interpretations, the scope of the language must be read in accordance with the parties' contemporaneous construction, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to show what the parties intended it to mean.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It has often been said that a useful guide in adjudging the equivalency between a claimed and an accused device is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of a part in the accused device with one in the claimed device.”
3 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.