Interdynamics, Inc. v. Wolf’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.2d 93 · 1981
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Athlone Industries, Inc. (1984), Board Trustees Trucking Employees North Jersey Welfare Fund Inc--Pension Fund v. Centra Gls Ct Gls Ct (1992)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · United States v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Armour & Co. · Lear, Inc. v. Adkins · Burgess v. Seligman
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is presented as to how a patentee should be allowed to proceed when following a successful infringement suit the infringer modifies the infringing structure and continues as before. Allowing the patentee to proceed by a summary contempt proceeding in all cases would unnecessarily deter parties from marketing new devices that are legitimately outside the scope of the patent in question. On the other hand, to require in each instance the patentee to institute a new infringement suit diminishes the significance of the patent and the order of the court holding the patent to be valid and infringed. Obviously there must be a dividing point between those cases which should be handled by a summary contempt proceeding and those cases which should be more fully viewed in an infringement proceeding. Courts have uniformly held that the standard to be applied in determining the dividing point is whether the alleged offending device is “merely ‘colorably’ different from the enjoined device or from the patent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the first place a consent decree, although negotiated by the parties, is a judicial act. United States v. Swift and Co. 286 U.S. 106 [ 52 S.Ct. 460 , 76 L.Ed. 999 ] (1932). Such a decree possesses the same force with regard to res judicata and collateral estoppel as a judgment entered after a trial on the merits. See generally, Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 [ 25 S.Ct. 679 , 49 L.Ed. 1066 ] (1905); Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20 [ 2 S.Ct. 10 , 27 L.Ed. 359 ] (1882).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“from the product previously conceded to infringe. The Court reached the merits and remanded the case so that the district court might enter a judgment of contempt against Trans Tech; Trans Tech withdrew its second product from the market and began to develop the product involved in the present appeal. 2 This appeal arises from the district court's decision in a proceeding commenced when Trans Tech applied for an order that would require Interdynamics to appear and”
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.