Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics Inc’s Empirical Analysis
976 F.2d 1559 · 1992
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 53 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross (1998), Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. (1998)
24 federal appellate · 53 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
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Marino 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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must show that each element of the claim in issue is found, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] potential infringer ... has an affirmative duty of due care that normally requires the potential infringer to obtain competent legal advice before infringing or continuing to infringe.... The emphasis here must be on 'competent' legal advice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd.“To recover lost profits as actual damages, a patent holder must demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability that, but for the infringement, it would have made the infringer's sales.”
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.