Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Company’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.2d 1315 · 1980
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co (1992), ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital (1984)
25 federal appellate · 11 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 · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Davis v. Alaska
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although laches and estoppel are related concepts, there is a clear distinction between the two. The defense of laches may be invoked where the plaintiff has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in prosecuting its rights and where that delay has resulted in material prejudice to the defendant. The effect of laches is merely to withhold damages for infringement which occurred prior to the filing of the suit. Estoppel, on the other hand, “arises only when one has so acted as to mislead another and the one thus misled has relied upon the action of the inducing party to his prejudice.” Estoppel forecloses the patentee from enforcing his patent prospectively through an injunction or through damages for continuing infringement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he courts have not required the mode disclosed by the inventor be in fact the optimum mode of carrying out the invention ... Even if there is a better method, the failure to disclose it will not invalidate the patent if the inventor does not know of it or does not appreciate that it is the best method ... Instead the thrust of decisions in this area has been to require that the inventor act in good faith with no attempt to conceal what he feels is the best method of using the invention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art and the particular circumstances of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.