Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 879 F.2d 820 - Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc.

Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

879 F.2d 820 · 1989

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
January 2017
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Read Corporation Ft v. Portec Inc (1992), Johns Hopkins University v. CellPro, Inc. (1998)

19 federal appellate · 6 district ·

5301989199020002010decided

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. § 1961 · 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 285

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer

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

  1. “Appellees always have the right to assert alternative grounds for affirming the judgment that are supported by the record.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “on clearly erroneous factual findings, legal error, or a manifest error of judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We note, first, the logical error in considering the preference of customers for the infringer as a source of supply. That preference, if it exists, bears no relevance to element three of the Panduit test, which concerns only the manufacturing/marketing capability of the patentee to meet the demand. The demand which a patentee must have the capacity to meet is measured by the total sales, by the patentee and the infringer, of the patented product. Datascope Corp. v. SMEC Inc., 879 F.2d 820 , 11 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir.1989) [emphasis original].”
    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.