Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 720 F.2d 1565 - Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.

Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

720 F.2d 1565 · 1983

Citation profile

230
cited by 230 later decisions
May 2018
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 37 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1985)

20 federal appellate · 37 district ·

13101983199020002010decided

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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Smith v. Snow · Autogiro Co. of America v. United States · Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. · Ssih Equipment Sa v. United States International Trade Commission

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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]t is axiomatic that an inventor need not comprehend the scientific principles on which the practical effectiveness of his invention rests.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1. A sensitized photographic plate comprising an aluminum sheet which has been treated to produce an aluminum oxide coating thereon, a water-insoluble, hydrophilic, organophobic layer on said sheet resulting from the reaction of the aluminum oxide coating and an alkali metal silicate applied to said coating, and a light-sensitive coating over said layer having one solubility in relation to a solvent in a state before exposure to light and another solubility in relation to said solvent in another state after exposure to light, said light-sensitive material being soluble in said solvent in one of said states and being insoluble in said solvent and in water, hydrophobic and organophilic in its other state.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The issue of infringement raises at least two questions: (1) what is patented, and (2) has what is patented been made, used or sold by another. The first is a question of law; the second a question of fact.”
    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.