Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 F.3d 1572 - Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

93 F.3d 1572 · 1996

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (2004), CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. (2002)

14 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

5101996200020102020decided

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 MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Hughey v. United States · Autogiro Co. of America 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the plain meaning of the claim [would] not bear [such] a reading”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “described a single element, one would expect the claim to consistently refer to this element as either a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the entire phrase “connected to said longitudinal slots” must be read narrowly. First, in what meaningful sense is it possible to “connect” the restraining member, which is a physical item, with the longitudinal slots, which are hollow passageways, unless “connected to” is understood to mean that the restraining member operatively interacts with the longitudinal slots by blocking them? Second, [the patentee’s] argument proves too much. If, as [the plaintiff] argues, “connected to” should be read broadly to include elements which are connected directly or indirectly, then this language would read on a lockout mechanism located anywhere in the surgical stapler, and the “connected to” limitation would be meaninglessly empty.”
    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.