LaBounty Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
958 F.2d 1066 · 1992
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc. (1995), Cr Bard Inc v. M3 Systems Inc (1998)
27 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 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 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Poland v. Arizona · Rita v. United States · Idaho v. Wright
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] patentee facing a high level of materiality and clear proof that it knew or should have known of that materiality, can expect to find it difficult to establish subject good faith sufficient to prevent the drawing of an inference of intent to mislead.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 102(b) may create a bar to patentability either alone, if the device placed on sale is an anticipation of the later claimed invention or, in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1988), if the claimed invention would have been obvious from the on-sale device in conjunction with the prior art.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[c]lose cases should be resolved by disclosure, not unilaterally by applicant.”
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.