Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
952 F.2d 1384 · 1992
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 47 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 272 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross (1998)
49 federal appellate · 47 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Brewster v. Derwinski · Penson v. Ohio
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 272 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“call cost register means, including a digital display, for providing a substantially instantaneous display of cumulative call cost in dollars and cents.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant asserts that the court thereby added a limitation to the claim. If this was an error, and we are not persuaded that the court intended to so restrict the claim when the restriction was not necessary to its discussion, the error would be harmless. The claim does not, in any event, encompass machine readable information. Id. at n. 1. As we have previously explained, the subsequent holding (that in addition to being human (not machine —) readable, the”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he place to [specially define claim terms] is in the specification of the inventor’s application, and the time to do so is prior to that application acquiring its own independent life as a technical disclosure through its issuance as a United States patent. The litigation-induced pronouncements of [the inventor], coming nearly at the end of the term of his patent, have no effect on what the words of that document in fact do convey and have conveyed during its term to the public.”
3 later decisions 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.