Sharp Microelectronics Technology, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 1446 · 1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably The Mead Corporation v. United States (2002), The Mead Corporation v. United States (1999)
6 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Universal Electronics Inc. v. United States · MITA Copystar America v. United States · Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States · Ideal Toy Corp. v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n the absence of special language or context which otherwise requires--(c) a provision for parts of an article covers products solely or principally used as a part of such articles but a provision for 'parts' or 'parts and accessories' shall not prevail over a specific provision for such part or accessory.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.