Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
712 F.3d 549 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. · Laitram Corporation v. Rexnord Inc · Braun Medical Inc v. Abbott Laboratories Np
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing [means-plus-function claiming].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an applicant's argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well.”
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.