Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 1196 - Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc.

Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 1196 · 1987

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987)

10 federal appellate · 4 district ·

2501987199020002010decided

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. § 112

Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Jizmejian v. United States · Sigmond v. United States · Lister v. United States

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

  1. “Congress has provided this statute [section 112, paragraph 6] as a specific instruction on interpretation of the type of claim which otherwise might be held to be indefinite.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where a claim sets forth a means for performing a specific function, without reciting any specific structure for performing that function, the structure disclosed in the specification must be considered, and the patent claim construed to cover both the disclosed structure and equivalents thereof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[The movant] must show (1) that the jury’s presumed or expressed findings are not supported by substantial evidence or, (2) if the jury’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, that the legal conclusions implied from the verdict cannot be supported by those findings.”
    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.