green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 ·
…he application of the doctrine of equivalents rests on the sub-stantiality of the differences between the claimed and accused products or processes, assessed according to an objective standard.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1997 ·
…the trial judge does not have discretion to choose whether to apply the doctrine of equivalents when the record shows no literal infringement.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sanders Brine Shrimp Co. v. Bonneville Artemia International, Inc.
(2×)
the trial judge does not have discretion to choose whether to apply the doctrine of equivalents when the record shows no literal infringement.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zygo Corporation v. Wyko Corporation
(2×)
he application of the doctrine of equivalents rests on the sub-stantiality of the differences between the claimed and accused products or processes, assessed according to an objective standard.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee's Aquarium & Pet Products, Inc. v. Python Pet Products, Inc.
Ct. 1014, 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniels
See Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 164 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1145 , 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996) (experts are “supposed to testify impartially in the sphere of their expertise”); United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9th Cir.1984) (“Witnesses, particularly eyewitnesses, to a crime are the property of neither the prosecution nor the defense.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jim Guy Tucker
(2×)
See Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 152-56 (3d Cir.1995) (reversing district court for failure to strike jurors whose comments showed they were biased), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1145 , 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Condus v. Howard Savings Bank
See Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 164 (3d Cir.1995) (stating that an expert witness charged with the duty to give his or her independent and impartial expert opinion, and not subject to the client’s control with respect to the consultation or testimony he or she is hired to give, cannot constitute an agent), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1145 , 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); see also Edwin J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Green v. United States
(2×)
See Kirk v. Raymark, 61 F.3d 147 , 157 n. 7 (3d Cir.1995) (observing “impairment of the right to exercise peremptory challenges is usually deemed to be prejudicial error, without a showing of prejudice.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corporation
(2×)
See Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1512, 1518, 1520-21 , 35 USPQ2d 1641, 1645, 1647 (Fed.Cir.1995), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1014 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Annigoni
(2×)
See Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 61 F.3d 147 (3rd Cir.1995) (holding that the denial or impairment of a statutory right of peremptory challenge is per se reversible without proof of prejudice, and distinguishing the claim in Ross as constitutionally based), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); United States v. Broussard, 987 F.2d 215, 221 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the denial of right of peremptory challenge is reversible error even after Ross , and explaining that applying harmless-error review to the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge “would evisce…
discussed
Cited "see"
International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local Union 1332 v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
See Kirk v. Raymark Indus., 61 F.3d 147, 164 (3d Cir.1995) (citing to Restatement (Second) of Agency), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); Butler v. Flo-Ron Vending Co., 383 Pa.Super. 633 , 557 A.2d 730, 736 (same), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 646 , 567 A.2d 650 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
INTERN. LONGSHORE. UN. 1332 v. Intern. Longshore.
See Kirk v. Raymark Indus., 61 F.3d 147, 164 (3d Cir.1995) (citing to Restatement (Second) of Agency ), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); Butler v. Flo-Ron Vending Co., 383 Pa.Super. 633 , 557 A.2d 730, 736 (same), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 646 , 567 A.2d 650 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.
(2×)
See Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1512, 1518, 1520-21 , 35 USPQ2d 1641, 1645, 1647 (Fed.Cir.1995), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1014 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hughes Aircraft Company v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant
(2×)
See id. at 1365, 219 USPQ at 483 ("Advanced computers and digital communications techniques developed since Williams permit doing on-board a part of what Williams taught as done on the ground.... [A]n embellishment made possible by post-Williams technology, does not allow the accused spacecraft to escape the 'web of infringement.' " (quoting Bendix Corp. v. United States, 220 Ct.Cl. 507 , 600 F.2d 1364, 1382 , 204 USPQ 617, 631 (1979))). 36 This analysis in the court's prior decision is therefore entirely consistent with Pennwalt, as well as this court's more recent in banc decision in Hilton …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Satcher v. Netherland
See, e.g., Kirk v. Raymark Ind., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 157 (3rd Cir.1995) (quoting footnote 4 and noting that "[t]he Supreme Court specifically declined to decide this issue in Ross v. Oklahoma”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1015 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); Murray v. Delo, 34 F.3d 1367, 1378-79 (8th Cir.1994) (citing footnote 4 and noting that "the Supreme Court has not specifically decided this question”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2567 , 132 L.Ed.2d 819 (1994); Pickens v. Lockhart, 4 F.3d 1446, 1450 (8th Cir.1993) (noting that "[t]he Court did not decide the broader question” l…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warnmer-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1512 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1014 , 134 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); Graver Tank & Mfg.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Colgate Palmolive Co. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
See also Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Wamer-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1512, 1517 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1014 , 134 L.Ed.2d 96 (February 26, 1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.
v.
Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
v.
Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
No. 95-728.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 26, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2) · D. Utah (2)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.