Stiftung v. Renishaw PLC’s Empirical Analysis
945 F.2d 1173 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc. (1999), North American Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co. (1993)
9 federal appellate · 13 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. Munsingwear, Inc. · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Mann v. Koob · Wrenn v. Weinberger · Constant 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he claims of the patent provide the concise formal definition of the invention. They are the numbered paragraphs which “particularly [point] -out and distinctly [claim] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 . It is to these wordings that one must look to determine whether there has been infringement. [Footnote omitted]. Courts can neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the patentee something different than what he set forth. [Footnote omitted]. No matter how great the temptations of fairness or policy making, courts do not rework claims. They only interpret them.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is fundamental that one cannot avoid infringement merely by adding elements if each element recited in the claims is found in the accused device. For example, a pencil structurally infringing a patent claim would not become nonin-fringing when incorporated into a complex machine that limits or controls what the pencil can write.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The point is not whether the specification suggests the use of any means of signalling contact other than the kinematic mount claimed, but rather, whether the claim and specification in effect preclude any additional signalling means or otherwise require that the claim be limited to devices containing only the structures of the embodiments specifically described in the specification. Indeed, claim 2, which uses the term “comprising,” is an “open” claim which will read on devices which add additional elements....”
2 later decisions 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.