Gould v. Control Laser Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the issues are still simplified “when a claim survives the reexamination proceeding” because reexamination “facilitate[s] trial . . . by providing the district court with the expert view of the PTO”
• noting that \stays to enable reexamination do not foreclose review on the merits by a federal court\
• noting that “[o]ne purpose of the reexamina- tion procedure is to eliminate trial of that issue (when the claim is canceled)”
• noting that “stays to enable reexamination do not foreclose review on the merits by a federal court”
• stating that a stay in deference to PTO reexamination proceedings “is not for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion”
• stating that “because district courts have broad discretionary powers to control their dockets, stays will not be vacated unless they are immoderate and of an indefinite duration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

67 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Ethicon, Inc. v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks and the United States Patent & Trademark Office
  Federal Circuit· 1988-06-15· cited 284×
• Amado v. Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-02-26· cited 145×
• Virtualagility Inc. v. salesforce.com, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-07-10· cited 145×
• Atari, Inc. v. Js & a Group, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1984-11-08· cited 134×
• Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-07-02· cited 127×
• The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. The United States, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 1997-09-05· cited 111×
• Patlex Corporation v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Etc.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-03-07· cited 97×
• Murata MacHinery USA, Inc. v. Daifuku Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-08-01· cited 96×
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-05· cited 80×
• SPREAD SPECTRUM SCREENING LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-09-26· cited 70×
• Slip Track Systems, Inc. And Todd A. Brady v. Metal Lite, Inc., Thomas R. Herren and Gene N. Carpenter
  Federal Circuit· 1998-10-08· cited 51×
• John R. Ramsey Et Al. v. R. James Nicholson
  Veterans Claims· 2006-03-31· cited 46×
• Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. And the Infusaid Company v. The Regents of the University of Minnesota
  Federal Circuit· 1986-10-22· cited 42×
• Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 1999-04-20· cited 40×
• Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon. Com, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2005-02-09· cited 37×
• Gordon Gould v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
  Federal Circuit· 1987-06-25· cited 31×
• MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2007-08-01· cited 30×
• Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp.
  W.D. New York· 1999-02-18· cited 29×
• Canvs Corporation v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2014-09-26· cited 26×
• Ever Win International Corp. v. Radioshack Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2012-10-09· cited 23×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1983-02-23· cited 9,657×
• Cobbledick v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1940-02-26· cited 1,204×
• Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein
  Supreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 515×
• Hershel Hiram McKnight v. C. H. Blanchard, Sheriff of Lubbock County, Texas
  Fifth Circuit· 1982-02-08· cited 136×

Other cases named Gould v. Control Laser Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Gould v. Control Laser Corp.
  M.D. Florida· 1978-11-27· cited 12×
• Gould v. Control Laser Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1983-10-31· cited 1×