Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
December 2017
most recently cited
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Phillips v. AWH 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A method of improving airline luggage inspection by a luggage screening entity, comprising: [Step 1] making available to consumers a special lock having a combination lock portion and a master key lock portion, the master key lock portion for receiving a master key that can open the master key lock portion of this special lock, the special lock designed to be applied to an individual piece of airline luggage, the special lock also having an identification structure associated therewith that matches an identification structure previously provided to the luggage screening entity, which special lock the luggage screening entity has agreed to process in accordance with a special procedure, [Step 2] marketing the special lock to the consumers in a manner that conveys to the consumers that the special lock will be subjected by the luggage screening entity to the special procedure, [Step 3] the identification structure signaling to a luggage screener of the luggage screening entity who is screening luggage that the luggage screening entity has agreed to subject the special lock associated with the identification structure to the special procedure and that the luggage screening entity has a master key that opens the special lock, and [Step 4] the luggage screening entity acting pursuant to a prior agreement to look for the identification structure while screening luggage and, upon finding said identification structure on an individual piece of luggage, to use the master key previo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The patents in suit, of which Tropp is the inventor, each claim a multi-step method of airline luggage screening. This method enables travelers to secure their checked luggage with a dual-access lock that can be opened by airport security personnel using a master key. Tropp’s company, Safe Skies, manufactures and sells a lock system that performs the initial steps of this process. Agents of the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), part of the United States Department of Homeland Security, perform the last two steps. Travel Sentry sells a similar lock system, which it licenses to defendants, who manufacture and sell luggage using the Travel Sentry system. Tropp alleges that defendants’ use of the Travel Sentry lock system infringes the patents in suit. However, in the Travel Sentry decision, this Court found that TSA, which performs the final two steps of the patented methods, was not controlled or directed by Travel Sentry, and thus there was no direct infringement under the joint infringement.doctrine— which, in turn, vitiated any possibility of indirect infringement as well. It is clear that Tropp’s theory of infringement in this case is identical to the one raised and decided by the Court in Travel Sentry. Tropp’s claims in this case are based on the theory that defendants committed indirect infringement connected to direct infringement by Travel Sentry.... The point is unmistakable: the accused method here is “Travel Sentry’s travel lock system,” with Travel Se”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) “Travel Sentry acknowledges that the TSA cannot make or infer any exclusive endorsement of Travel Sentry certified locks, nor can Travel Sentry claim that any such endorsement exists. Travel Sentry may not use the DHS/ TSA logo on any of its locks or distributed print or other media materials unless specifically authorized to do so in writing;” (b) “Travel Sentry understands that the TSA intends to develop a functional standard, open to the public, for ‘Independent Dual Custody Operation Locking Systems.’ By moving ahead with its program in advance of the publication and adoption of this standard, Travel Sentry or any other entity takes some degree of risk in that their locking system may not meet the final version of the functional standard;” and (c)“Travel Sentry will provide TSA with all necessary screener training materials, in sufficient quantities, on lock recognition, use of passkeys to open locks and ordering of replacement or additional sets of passkeys. Travel Sentry will work with TSA in ensuring distribution of training materials to all checked baggage screening sites.””
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.