Oak Industries v. Zenith Electronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2010
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 252 · 35 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 305 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 306 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 307 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980)
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Shelton v. American Motors Corp. · Seattle Box Company Inc v. Industrial Crating & Packing Inc F · Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp. · Kaufman Company Inc v. Lantech 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the terms “material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial”: (a) “Litigation” includes a proceeding in a court or administrative tribunal in which the parties have the right to cross-examine witnesses or to subject an opposing party’s presentation of proof to equivalent disputation. (b) “In anticipation” means any time after initiation of the proceeding or such earlier time as the party who normally would initiate the proceeding had tentatively formulated a claim, demand, or charge. When the material was prepared by a party who normally would initiate such a proceeding, that person must establish the date when the claim, demand, or charge was tentatively formulated. When the material was prepared by a potential defendant or respondent, that person must establish the date when he received a demand or warning of charges or information from an outside source that a claim, demand, or charge was in prospect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here, Zenith seeks discovery of McEa-chran’s thought processes with respect to the original patent application and the later reexamination. As far as the application, we believe that any impressions or thoughts he had regarding the drafting or handling of the original application are too distant in time to be characterized as having been made “in anticipation” of litigation____ We decline to hold, as a general rule, that an attorney’s thoughts and theories regarding the preparation of a patent application are always protected by the work product privilege. Therefore, we hold that Zenith may inquire into the mental impressions and legal theories McEachran had formulated in connection with the patent application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The work product immunity has been held not to apply to the preparation of a patent application for the reason that it is too distant in time to be considered as having been made “in anticipation” of litigation. Further, a patent is obtained in an ex parte proceeding and until that proceeding becomes adversarial in nature the work product rule has no application.”
1 later decision 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.