Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 1098 · 1996
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 26 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp. (2002), Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. (1997)
22 federal appellate · 26 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 251 · 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Miller v. Brass 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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them ... may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the number of the patent.... In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A patentee may not narrowly claim his invention and then, in the course of an infringement suit, argue that the doctrine of equivalents should permit a finding of infringement because the specification discloses the equivalents. Such a result would merely encourage a patent applicant to present a broad disclosure in the specification of the application and file narrow claims, avoiding examination of broader claims that the applicant could have filed consistent with the specification.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had the burden of pleading and proving at trial that she complied with the statutory requirements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.