Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 1553 · 1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 30 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross (1998), Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp. (2002)
22 federal appellate · 30 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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. · United States v. Adams · Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t may well be that in some cases one side or the other will offer the correct interpretation to the judge. More often, however, it is likely that the adversaries will offer claim interpretations arguably consistent with the claims, the specifica tion and ■ the prosecution history that produce victory for their side. In any event, the judge’s task is not to decide which of the adversaries is correct. Instead the judge must independently assess the claims, the specification, and if necessary the prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic evidence, and declare the meaning of the claims.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Exxon's error was in failure of proof as to the claimed amounts [of one of the ingredients of the lubricating oil that was the subject of the claims], without which it could not prove infringement under Lubrizol's claim meaning.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen we determine on appeal, as a matter of law, that a trial judge has misinterpreted a patent claim, we independently construe the claim to determine its correct meaning, and then determine if the facts presented at trial can support the appealed judgment.”
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.