Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
988 F.2d 1165 · 1993
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 49 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross (1998), Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co. (1995)
21 federal appellate · 49 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. § 121
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · California v. ARC America Corp. · Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa · Lister 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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nmistakable assertions made by the applicant to the . . . PTO . . . in support of patentability, whether or not required to secure allowance of the claim, . . . may operate to preclude the patentee from asserting equivalency . . . .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts can neither broaden nor narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set forth.”
3 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.