green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.
n considering we have no pto view before us on in view of those references and appellants' burden of proof under 35 u.s.c. 282 is more easily carried.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Goralski Et Vir v. Pl Pizzimenti
However, if the opinion is stated in a manner that implies that it draws upon unstated facts for its basis, the listener is unable to make an evaluation of the soundness of the opinion. ' Id. at 972.
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Leo v. Felton Erica Chase, Appellants/cross-Appellees
See United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 388 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Chase
See United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 388 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Osborne v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund
Co., 588 F.Supp. 1375, 1378 (E.D.Mich.1984); see Edwards v. Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. Pension Trust, 757 F.2d 52, 55 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 130 , 88 L.Ed.2d 107 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fabio Rodriguez Cortes, United States v. Eduardo Ocampo-Hoyos, United States v. Rafael Perez Martinez
(2×)
See United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 387 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rose Bordanaro v. John McLeod Appeal of City of Everett, Edward Connolly, and Donald Bontempo
“Only rarely — and in extraordinarily compelling circumstances — will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” Freeman v. Package Machinery, Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1335 (1st Cir.1988); see United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 388 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Intra Corporation and Eagle Technologies, Inc. v. Hamar Laser Instruments, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant
See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 , 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). 31 In conclusion, the district court articulated a full and careful analysis and we are not persuaded that reversible legal error has occurred in the determination that the invention of the '202 patent would have been obvious; nor are we convinced that the court's findings underlying that determination are clearly erroneous.
cited
Cited "see"
Energy Mgt. P 26,603 Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association v. Economic Regulatory Administration
See State of Texas v. United States, 766 F.2d 419 , 427 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 129 , 88 L.Ed.2d 106 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rotron, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 , 225 USPQ 20, 24 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985): 37 In discussing this reference, the trial judge, closely tracking the testimony of appellee's professorial patent expert witness, Dr. Starkey, instead of applying the more relevant teachings of this patent to the issue of obviousness, concentrated on Fig. 19 because it related to pipe....
discussed
Cited "see"
Turvene v. United States
See Shelleman, 9 Cl.Ct. at 457 (“[T]he CSRA effected a sweeping reorganization of the Civil Service System such that the MSPB became the primary and sole vehicle for adjudicating ... prohibited personnel practices....”); accord Thomas v. GSA, 756 F.2d 86, 89 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 129 , 88 L.Ed.2d 106 (1985) (suspension includes placing employee on non-duty, non-pay status for reasons other than discipline); Bivens, 12 Cl.Ct. at 731 (forced medical retirement constitutes a suspension claim under the CSRA).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haeffele v. Hercules Inc.
See Edwards v. Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. Pension Trust, 757 F.2d 52, 57 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 130 , 88 L.Ed.2d 107 (1985); Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 601 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 829 , 104 S.Ct. 105 , 78 L.Ed.2d 108 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trencor, Inc., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
(2×)
The Court has stated that “[w]hile we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given, we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 , 95 S.Ct. 438, 442 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974); see also State of Texas v. United States, 756 F.2d 419, 427 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 129 , 88 L.Ed.2d 106 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State Ex Rel. Suriano v. Gaughan
See also Redco Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 758 F.2d 970 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 107 (1985) (holding general charge of unethical practices to be privileged expression of opinion); Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 , 105 S.Ct. 961 , 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985) (same); Lewis v. Time, Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 554 (9th Cir.1983) (inference of doubtful morality or professional skill is “broad, unfocused, wholly subjective comment, not the kind of factual expression for which the Constitution permits liab…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indian Head Industries, Inc. v. Ted Smith Equipment Co.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-94 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1344 (Fed.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 60 (1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed.Cir.) (noting that the function of witnesses, experts and otherwise, is to assist the court in determining and comprehending facts), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hans Oetiker
(2×)
See, also, EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 906-07 , 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995 , 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed.Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Steven Angelo Ward
We need not address the general question of whether a statement disclaiming ownership should be considered an abandonment of any privacy interest, because under the circumstances of this case any abandonment was ineffective because it was tainted by the prior illegality. “[Abandonment will not be recognized when it is the result of illegal police conduct.” United States v. Brady, 842 F.2d 1313 , 1315 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also United States v. Lucci, 758 F.2d 153, 155 (6th Cir.) (disclaimer prompted by an unconstitutional seizure or arrest does not preclude exclusion), cert. denied, 474…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dcpb, Inc. v. City of Lebanon, Dcpb, Inc. v. City of Lebanon
(2×)
See Fed.R.Evid. 401 (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”); see also United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 387 (1st Cir.) (“Where ... the disputed evidence is offered to show motive, the relevancy hurdle is at its nadir.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Syntex Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd. v. K-Line Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 (Fed.Cir.1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Becton Dickinson and Co. v. CR Bard, Inc.
Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 (Fed.Cir.1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 181 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Research Medical, Inc.
Nor does such introduction ‘shift’ the basic burden of persuasion_ Such introduction can, of course, facilitate the challenger’s carrying of that burden.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 , 218 U.S.P.Q. 871, 875-76 (Fed.Cir.1983). “[The effect] of new prior art [not before the PTO] ... is to eliminate or at least reduce, the element of deference due the PTO, thereby partially, if not wholly, discharging the attacker’s burden....” Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 , 223 U.S.P.Q. 603, 606 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting American Hoist & Derrick…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
TRENCOR, INC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Court has stated that “[w]hile we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given, we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 (1974); see also State of Texas v. United States, 756 F.2d 419, 427 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Texas
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 85-9.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.