← 794 F.2d 653 - Moeller v. Ionetics, Inc.

Moeller v. Ionetics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

794 F.2d 653 · 1986

Citation profile

116

cited by 116 later decisions

December 2005

most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 24 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987)

12 federal appellate · 24 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Jizmejian v. United States · Mabry v. Johnson · SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. · Loctite Corporation v. Ultraseal Ltd · United States v. Connolly

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

“Although use of experts is generally a matter of discretion with the trial judge, that discretion is not unlimited. In a patent case involving complex scientific principles, it is particularly helpful to see how those skilled in the art would interpret the claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.
“[U]nderlying fact disputes may arise pertaining to extrinsic evidence that might preclude summary judgment treatment of claim construction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Associated Equipment Corporation v. Authorized Motor Parts Corporation, D/B/A Napa Distribution Center, Blackhawk Automotive Inc. And Genuine Parts Company · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
“Depending on the nature and purpose of an amendment, it may have a limiting effect within a spectrum ranging from great to small to zero”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Pretty Punch Shoppettes, Inc. v. Creative Wonders, Inc. · Andrew Corporation v. Gabriel Electronics, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant

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.