Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
952 F.2d 1320 · 1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 25 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. (1998), Read Corporation Ft v. Portec Inc (1992)
6 federal appellate · 25 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Sykes · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“particularized testimony and linking argument”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he right to jury trial of [equivalence cannot] be extinguished because the doctrine of equivalence was “judicially devised to do equity.” The jury has historically been charged with the factual inquiry of equivalency: The question whether one thing is a mechanical equivalent for another is a question of fact for the jury, on the testimony of experts, or an inspection of the machines; and it is an inference to be drawn from all the circumstances of the case, by attending to the consideration, whether the contrivance used by the defendant is used for the same purpose, performs the same duties, or is applicable to the same object, as the contrivance used by the patentee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Pursuant to our precedent, a patentee must still provide particularized testimony and linking argument as to the “insubstantiality of the differences” between the claimed invention and the accused device or process, or with respect to the function, way, result test when such evidence is presented to support a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Such evidence must be presented on a limitation-by-limitation basis.”
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.