Fonar Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 627 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Cardinal Chemical Company v. Morton International Inc (1993)
13 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 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Jones v. Howard · 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There being no infringement by J & J of any asserted claim, there remains no case or controversy between the parties. We need not pass on the validity or enforceability of claims 1 and 2. . . . [C]f. Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 363-65 [63 S.Ct. 1115, 1117-1119, 87 L.Ed. 1450] . . . (1943) ('To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case,' but a counterclaim for invalidity is not mooted where counterclaim deals with additional patent claims and devices not involved in the complaint and with license issues.). 15 . . . . . 16”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The record contains no assertion that J & J infringes the '832 patent by any methods other than those found not to infringe, or that J & J's machines infringe the nonasserted apparatus claims. J & J's counterclaim merely repeated the affirmative defenses of invalidity and unenforceability and the verdict form, with no objection by J & J, dealt only with the asserted claims. J & J's motion for JNOV dealt only with claims 1 and 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“since inventors 'must use words in the same way in the claims and in the specification,' it is logical to conclude that the word spot also means a light spot when used in the claims of the '272 patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.