green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1995 ·
…he district court properly interpreted the claim in light of the prosecution history in the first trial, defining 'slightly greater' spacing in terms of its purpose____
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1992 ·
…inefficient infringement is still infringement
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2002 ·
…references to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Bruce Nelson, P-8315 v. Thomas A. Fulcomer Appeal of Bruce Nelson
(2×)
But see Koza v. State, 102 Nev. 181 , 718 P.2d 671 (1986) (informing suspect of incriminating palm print and ballistics report constitutes interrogation), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2069 , 104 L.Ed.2d 634 (1989); People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 237 , 472 N.E.2d 13 (1984) (confrontation with stolen goods is interrogation), ce rt. denied, 472 U.S. 1007 , 105 S.Ct. 2700 , 86 L.Ed.2d 717 (1985); State v. Mills, 6 N.C.App. 347 , 170 S.E.2d 189 (1969) (same).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Inverness Medical Switzerland Gmbh and Unipath Diagnostics, Inc. v. Warner Lambert Company, (Now Known as Pfizer Inc.)
(2×)
references to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Custom Optical Frames, Inc.
(2×)
he district court properly interpreted the claim in light of the prosecution history in the first trial, defining 'slightly greater' spacing in terms of its purpose____
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Transmatic, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Gulton Industries, Inc.
(2×)
this court has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.
(2×)
inefficient infringement is still infringement
discussed
Cited "see"
Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Pharmadyne Corp.
(2×)
Id. (emphasis added); see Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 859 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1068 , 109 S.Ct. 2069 , 104 L.Ed.2d 634 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace London and Clemco Products, Inc. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., Marshall Field Stores, Inc., W. Bell & Co., Inc., and Samsonite Corporation
(2×)
See Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 856-57 , 9 USPQ2d 1289, 1291 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1068 , 109 S.Ct. 2069 , 104 L.Ed.2d 634 (1989) (citing the additional opinions in Pennwalt as exhaustively discussing these competing policies).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lucas Aerospace, Ltd. v. Unison Industries, L.P.
(2×)
Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1985); see, e.g., Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed.Cir.1988) (references in specification to preferred embodiment with a square shaft “not a basis here for limiting ‘non-circular’ to square or regular polygonal shafts”), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1068 , 109 S.Ct. 2069 , 104 L.Ed.2d 634 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cambridge Wire Cloth Co.
v.
Laitram Corp.
v.
Laitram Corp.
No. 88-1576.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 15, 1989.
Cited by 30 opinions | Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.