Hycor Corporation v. Schlueter Company’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 1529 · 1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Manville Sales Corporation v. Paramount Systems Inc S J (1990), Jp Stevens Co Inc v. Lex Tex Ltd Inc (1984)
6 federal appellate · 16 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc · Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co. · Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss · TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court did not shift to [the patent owner] the burden of proving the validity of the ’548 patent. Instead, the trial court correctly imposed on [the patent owner] the burden of going forward with convincing evidence to counter [the challenger’s] prima facie showing of invalidating public use. As this court said in TP Laboratories [v. Professional Positioners, Inc.], 724 F.2d [965] at 971, 220 USPQ at 582 [(Fed.Cir.1984)]: Thus, the court should ... [look] at all of the evidence put forth by both parties and should ... [decide] whether the entirety of the evidence led to the conclusion that there had been “public use.” This does not mean, of course, that the challenger has the burden of proving that the use is not experimental. Nor does it mean that the patent owner is relieved of explanation. It means that if a prima facie case is made of public use, the patent owner must come forward with convincing evidence to counter that showing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ***** * "(b) the invention was * * * in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States * * * [.]"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. To be considered “material” in any sense, the misrepresented or undisclosed information must be at least such that “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider [it] important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue”. This “threshold” materiality standard is set forth in Patent Office Rule 56. 2. The misrepresented or undisclosed information is more material if awareness of it “might reasonably have affected the examiner’s decision” to issue the patent. This has been referred to as the “but it may have” level of materiality. 3. The misrepresented or undisclosed information is yet more material if the particular Examiner in question would have rejected the patent claims if he had known of that information, even though the claims were in fact patentable. This has been referred to as the subjective “but for” level of materiality. 4. The misrepresented or undisclosed information is most material if it does in fact render the claims unpatentable. This has been referred to as the objective “but for” level of materiality.”
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.