Lemelson v. TRW, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 1254 · 1985
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1985), Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc. (1985)
8 federal appellate · 5 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. § 111 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 121 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on United States v. Diebold, Inc. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Rodriguez v. Lash · Chour v. Ferro · British Airways Board v. Boeing Co.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“continuing disclosure through the chain of applications, without hiatus.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ,”
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.