166 F. Supp. 2d 1237 - Jackson v. Casio PhoneMate, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fatal flaw in plaintiffs analysis is that [SuperGuide] failed to show that the accused device is programmed to perform the same functions as [its] device, and that the way in which the accused device performs those functions is equivalent to [its] device. That is, ■plaintiff failed to identify the particular components within the accused device (including any algorithm used by its mi- ■ croprocessor) that allegedly perform the [conversion of digital data into analog data and the mixing of two analog signals] and [it] failed to show that those components (and/or that algorithm) perform those functions in substantially the same way as the [Reiter mixer] that the court has construed [is] the corresponding structure in plaintiffs invention.”
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.