Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 983 F.2d 1039 - Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Co.

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

983 F.2d 1039 · 1993

Citation profile

181
cited by 181 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 41 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 181 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc. (1993), Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc. (1998)

20 federal appellate · 41 district · 2 state decisions

10101993200020102020decided

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 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Penson v. Ohio · Lister v. United States · Cochran v. United States · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.

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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'an insubstantial change which adds nothing of significance'”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[f]or a means-plus-function limitation to read on an accused device, the accused device must employ means identical to or the equivalent of the structures ... described in the patent specification[, and] must also perform the identical function as specified in the claims.”
    9 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.