Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.3d 1317 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. (2009), Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States (2012)
7 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 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. · Allen Engineering Corporation v. Bartell Industries Inc · Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing, (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [to] test claimed features of the invention or (2) to determine whether an invention will work for its intended purpose-itself a requirement of patentability.”
2 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.