How cited: Kramer v. Mitchell · Go Syfert

Kramer v. Mitchell (1984)

green · 189 citation events across 42 courts. Showing the 28 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198420052026
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.
Also, e.g., DMI, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 802 F.2d 421, 425 , 231 USPQ 276, 278 (Fed.Cir.1986) (to reverse the jury, the findings must not be supported by substantial evidence); Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985) (determining from the evidence as a whole whether there was substantial evidence in support of the jury verdict); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v…
"only when the court is convinced upon the record before the jury that reasonable persons could not have reached a verdict for the non-mover, should it grant the motion for JNOV."
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.
Also, e.g., DMI, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 802 F.2d 421, 425 , 231 USPQ 276, 278 (Fed.Cir.1986) (to reverse the jury, the findings must not be supported by substantial evidence); Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985) (determining from the evidence as a whole whether there was substantial evidence in support of the jury verdict); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v…
“only when the court is convinced upon the record before the jury that reasonable persons could not have reached a verdict for the non-mover, should it grant the motion for JNOV.”
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984). “ ‘Substantial’ evidence is such relevant evidence from the record taken as a whole as might be accepted by a reasonable mind as adequate to support the finding under review.” Id.
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); Railroad Dynamics Inc., 727 F.2d at 1512-13 , 220 USPQ at 936.
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
American Hoist & Derrick v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1361 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed.2d 41 (1984); see also Perkin-Elmer v. Computervision, 732 F.2d 888 , 895 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1234 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 853 , 110 S.Ct. 154 , 107 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989). 15 The Seventh Circuit in Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co…
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 , 221 USPQ 669, 675-676 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 , 221 USPQ 669, 678 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 , 225 USPQ 792 (1984).
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: compare
Compare Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1576 , 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2023 (Fed.Cir.1988) (applying 9th Circuit law on review of denial of post-verdict motion) with Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984) (applying Federal Circuit law on review of denial of post-verdict motion).
applying Federal Circuit law on review of denial of post-verdict motion
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.) (“We review judgments ... not passing statements.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited · 3rd Cir. · signal: see
See Collier v. City of Springdale, 733 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir.) (An inverse condemnation action is a constitutionally adequate procedure for obtaining just compensation when the government seizes property without initiating formal condemnation procedures), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 186 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894 , 221 USPQ 669, 674 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also
See also Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 , 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984) (the limitations appearing in the preamble are necessary to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention).
the limitations appearing in the preamble are necessary to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention
green In Re Edgar L. Stencel (1987)
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also
See also Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 , 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984) (the limitations appearing in the preamble are necessary to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention).
the limitations appearing in the preamble are necessary to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1571 , 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1085 (Fed.Cir.1986); Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506, 1512 , 220 USPQ 929, 936 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 871 , 105 S.Ct. 220 , 83 L.Ed.2d 150 (1984); see Rios v. Empresas Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 575 F.2d 986, 989-90 (1st Cir.1978) (affirming denial of JNOV where jury could “reasonably” have reached its verdict on the record). “ ‘Substantial’ evidence…
Cited · Fed. Cir. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 , 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); Railroad Dynamics, 727 F.2d at 1512 , 220 USPQ at 936 .
Cited · E.D. Pa. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-94 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); see also Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“evidence arising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’ must always when present be considered in route to a determination of obviousness”).
green Vandor Corp. v. Wilson (2001)
Cited · S.D. Ind. · signal: see
See Perkinr-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · D. Maryland · signal: see also
Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1991) (claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers); see also Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · D. Del. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 (Fed.Cir.) (“Where, as here, there is a verdict of validity, the question is not whether the patentee had introduced sufficiently substantial evidence to support the verdict, but whether the challenger’s evidence so met the burden imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 282 (‘[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity’) that reasonable jurors could …
Cited (see also) · N.D. Ga. · signal: see also
Dataline Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1200 (Fed.Cir.1987) (citing Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computer Vision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984)); see also Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506 , 1512 *1050 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 871 , 105 S.Ct. 220 , 83 L.Ed.2d 150 (1984). “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is such relevant evidence from the record taken as a whole as mig…
Cited · D. Mass. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 , 221 U.S.P.Q. 669 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited (see also) · Ct. Cl. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); In re Bulloch, 604 F.2d 1362, 1365 (CCPA 1979).
green Hemperly v. Crumpton (1988)
Cited · M.D. Ala. · signal: see
See Collier v. City of Springdale, 733 F.2d 1311 , 1314-15 & n. 5 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 186 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); Government of Virgin Islands v. 19,623 Acres of Land, 536 F.2d 566, 570-71 (3rd Cir.1976).
Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited · Ct. Cl. · signal: see
See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 901 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).
Cited · E.D. La. · signal: see
See PerkinElmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 680 F.2d 669 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984).