Eltra Corporation v. Basic Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 745 · 1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. (1985), Rengo Co Ltd 80-2556 v. Molins Machine Company Inc 80-2557 (1981)
6 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · United States v. Adams · Lear, Inc. v. Adkins · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such , that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In analyzing the validity of any patent we must begin with the statutory presumption of validity that accompanies its issuance, 35 USC § 282 . American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co., 586 F.2d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 1978). The presumption has no independent evidentiary significance, however, as it merely serves to allocate to the party claiming invalidity the burden of proving it. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Acorn Building Components, Inc., 548 F.2d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1977); Dickstein v. Seventy Corp., 522 F.2d 1294, 1296 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 1055 , 96 S.Ct. 787 , 46 L.Ed.2d 644 (1976); Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 713 (6th Cir.), cert, den., 423 U.S. 987 , 96 S.Ct. 395 , 46 L.Ed.2d 303 (1975); Rains v. Niaqua, Inc., 406 F.2d 275, 278 (2nd Cir.), cert. den. 395 U.S. 909 , 89 S.Ct. 1751 , 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969). In the typical case such as this, where the bulk of the evidence of the prior art is contained in documents, the party claiming obviousness need only do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Dickstein, supra, 522 F.2d 1295 -97, cf., Campbell v. Spectrum Automation Co., 513 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1975).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or non-obviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.”
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.