Rothman v. Target Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.3d 1310 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (2011), Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc. (2011)
9 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. · Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant · Cr Bard Inc v. M3 Systems Inc · Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [patent] examiner had the [prior art reference] to refer to during the reexamination proceeding and initially rejected claim 1 based on that reference. [The prosecuting attorney] argued against the rejection, and the examiner was free to reach his own conclusions and accept or reject [the prosecuting attorney]'s arguments. We therefore fail to see how the statements in the October 2005 Response, which consisted of attorney argument and an interpretation of what the prior art discloses, constitute affirmative misrepresentations of material fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To prevail on an inequitable conduct charge, a defendant must present `evidence that the applicant (1) made an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false information, and (2) intended to deceive the PTO.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reaching an obviousness determination, a trial court may conclude that a patent claim [was] obvious, even in the light of strong objective evidence tending to show nonobviousness.”
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.