Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Dudas’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 251
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Dickinson v. Zurko · Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A desk-top cutting machine, comprising: (1) a base on which a workpiece to be cut is supported, said base including a top surface; (2) a turntable rotatably disposed in said base and including a top surface; (3) a holder supported by said turntable for tilting transversely in opposite directions about a zero-tilt angle position; (4) a circular saw blade; (5) a saw shaft located above said holder for supporting said saw so that said saw is swung up and down relative to said base, about a pivot shaft; (6) a circular saw assembly having a motor covered by a housing; (7) a motor shaft of said motor being disposed in parallel with and above said saw shaft; (8) transmission means through which said motor shaft is connected to said saw shaft so that an axis of said motor shaft is shifted from an axis of said saw shaft by a distance which is greater than or equal to the radius of said circular saw blade, wherein when said holder is tilted in either of said opposite directions by an angle greater than or equal to 45 degrees with respect to the zero-tilt angle position, said housing does not contact said top surface of said base.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of [the BPAI] may ... have remedy by civil action against the [PTO] Director in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.... 2 The court may adjudge that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the [BPAI], as the facts in the case may appear and such adjudication shall authorize the Director to issue such patent.”
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.