Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 1527 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross (1998), Cr Bard Inc v. M3 Systems Inc (1998)
8 federal appellate · 16 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 Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Wrenn v. McFadden · Jones v. Howard · Poland v. Arizona
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the applicant does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.... The test for sufficiency of support in a patent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon "reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[wjhether the infringer intentionally copied the ideas of another; whether the infringer, once on notice of the patented invention, investigated the scope of the patent to form a good-faith belief that it was invalid or not infringed; and the infringer’s behavior as a party to the litigation____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fact findings reviewed under the substantial evidence standard require affirmance unless appellant shows that no reasonable juror could have reached such a result.”
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.