Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Since here we interpret our own, not a trial court's order, it seems all the clearer that no deference is due.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 246 N.C. App. 725 - State v. Watkins · Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co.

2. “The district court held that, despite the jury finding of willfulness, which it assumed to be proper, enhanced damages were inappropriate because of the closeness of both the infringement and willfulness issues .... [J]ury verdicts need neither be overturnable nor sustainable before a district court can properly find that the issues decided were close ones. The district court properly considered whether NEC had presented a good faith defense against willfulness and a substantial challenge to infringement. It found the issues close. We detect neither clear error in those findings nor an abuse of discretion in the consequential refusal to enhance damages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.

3. “[i]n determining the appropriate rate, courts have considered whether, during the period of infringement, the plaintiff 'borrowed money at a higher rate, what that rate was, or [whether] there was a causal connection between any borrowing and the loss of the use of the money awarded as a result of [the defendant's] infringement.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 315 F. Supp. 3d 977 - Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.