Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
731 F.2d 831 · 1984
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 46 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 462 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1985), Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States (1987)
21 federal appellate · 46 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from United States Court of International Trade)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on United States v. Diebold, Inc. · South Corporation v. United States · Union Carbide Corporation v. American Can Company · Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.
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 462 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any other. Where no genuine issue of material fact remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court should utilize the salutary procedure of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to avoid unnecessary expense to the parties and wasteful utilization of the jury process and judicial resources.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the complete invention claimed must have been embodied in or obvious in view of the thing offered for sale; (2) the invention must have been tested sufficiently to verify that it is operable and commercially marketable; and (3)the sale must be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless- (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent in the United States, (g)(2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.”
3 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.