Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 1247 · 1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical Inc (1991), Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (1991)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1927 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Oliveri v. Thompson · Tallman v. Northwest Acute Care Corp. · Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law ... and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation____ If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the ¡person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The magistrate’s purpose in issuing its order was to require [the party claiming infringement] to establish with particularity as to each defendant and each product the basis for its infringement allegations: At least one of the defendants reads my order to require you to produce what is called an infringement analysis. Certainly it was the intent of the order, and I think it may be fairly read to require that you tell each of the defendants what of their products and what portions of their products infringe what portions of your patents.”
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.