Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
Relationships
Relies on Jizmejian v. United States · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. · Madrid v. Lawyers Title Insurance · Ssih Equipment Sa v. United States International Trade Commission · Envirotech Corporation v. Al George, Incorporated and Monosep, 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A method for detecting cancer comprising: a. measuring and establishing standard NMR spin-lattice relaxation times and spin-spin relaxation times for both normal and cancerous tissue of the type under analysis using as an indicator nuclei at least one nuclei which exhibits deviant behavior in cancerous tissue; b. measuring the NMR spin-lattice relaxation times and spin-spin relaxation times for the suspected tissue to determine the extent of deviant behavior of the indicator nuclei; and c. comparing the values obtained in (b) against the standards obtained in (a). 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the indicator nuclei are cell water protons.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“NMR relaxation times when, with accumulated experience, the diagnostician learns to draw inferences from the shapes of images observed during extensive experience, stores in personal memory those images as standards, and then compares the standards with the images seen as the diagnostician examines suspected tissue for the purpose of detecting cancer. The words of Claims 1 and 2 will not bear the interpretation [Fonar] thus place[s] upon them. 20 630 F.Supp. at 587, 230 USPQ at 110. Judge Keeton concluded,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is support in the evidence for the jury finding that [J & J] has failed to prove that Dr. Damadian or his attorney failed to disclose to the Patent Office relevant information that they knew or should have known that a reasonable examiner would have considered important in allowing or rejecting the application.”
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.