Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 32 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Critikon, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Critikon, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc. Anchor | green | “intent may be inferred where a patent applicant knew, or should have known, that withheld information would be material to the pto's consideration of the patent application.” | 15 |
| 2 | Labounty Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, Dudley Shearing MacHine Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Intervenor-Appellee | green | “close cases should be resolved by disclosure, not unilaterally by the applicant.” | 14 |
| 3 | Life Technologies, Inc. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc.,defendant-Appellee | green | “equitable judgment concerning whether the applicant's conduct is so culpable that the patent should not be enforced.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.