Case Citator › Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
114 F.3d 1547
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1998
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Overruled in part. All 33 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The en banc Federal Circuit in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. disavowed Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's use of deferential review for factual findings made during patent claim construction. The later citing opinions generally applied other parts of Eastman Kodak and reported Cybor's action in citation histories.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The en banc Federal Circuit disavowed Eastman Kodak's deferential review of factual findings made during patent claim construction.

    Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. · Federal Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Thus, we conclude that the standard of review in Markman I, as discussed above, was not changed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman II, and we therefore reaffirm that, as a purely legal question, we review claim construction de novo on appeal including any allegedly fact-based questions relating to claim construction. Accordingly, we today disavow any language in previous opinions of this court that holds, purports to hold, states, or suggests anything to the contrary, see, e.g., Fromson, 132 F.3d at 1444, 45 USPQ2d at 1274 (“The district court’s findings of scientific/technological fact were material to the issue of construction of the term ‘anodizing.’ ”); Eastman Kodak, 114 F.3d at 1555-56, 42 USPQ2d at 1742 (affirming district court’s claim construction “recognizing both the trial court’s ‘trained ability to evaluate [expert] testimony in relation to the overall structure of the patent’ and the trial court’s ‘better position to ascertain whether an expert’s proposed definition fully comports with the specification and claims____’” (quoting Markman II, 517 U.S. at 388-90, 116 S.Ct. at 1394-95))
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace