Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurr v. Schubert & Salzer Maschinenfabrik Aktiengesellschaft’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 1568 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Stryker Corporation v. Davol Incorporated (2000), Johns Hopkins University v. CellPro, Inc. (1998)
7 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Shillitani v. United States · Wrenn v. McFadden
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(citation omitted). 73 The purpose of the fine, therefore, was to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“considered defendants' most recent annual financial report for the purposes of trying to ascertain a fine amount which would under these circumstances serve as a true deterrent. This report shows that defendants had the equivalent of over two hundred million U.S. dollars in sales volume in the past fiscal year and has set aside a contingency reserve for patent infringement liability of the equivalent of more than twenty million U.S. dollars. In view of this substantial sales volume ... and this contingency reserve the Court in its discretion deems it appropriate to set the civil fine at two million U.S. dollars (U.S. $2,000,000)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“prior to engaging in any activity enjoined by this Court's orders, [shall] make application in verified form to this Court for relief from the [pertinent] provisions of [the decree]. In any such application for relief, defendants shall set forth full details of their redesigned machine and shall verify that they have made such machine together with relevant technical documentation fully available to plaintiffs at a convenient location outside the United States for their inspection, testing and comment to this Court prior to any ruling by the Court on the application for relief.”
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.