182 F. Supp. 2d 580 - Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Technologies Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hansberry v. Lee · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Uniformity would ... be ill served by submitting issues of document construction to juries. Making them jury issues would not, to be sure, necessarily leave evidentiary questions of meaning wide open in every new court in which a patent might be litigated, for principles of issue preclusion would ordinarily foster uniformity. But whereas issue preclusion could not be asserted against new and independent infringement defendants even within a given jurisdiction, treating interpretive issues as purely legal will promote (though it will not guarantee) intrajurisdictional certainty through the application of stare decisis on those questions not yet subject to interjurisdictional uniformity under the authority of the single appeals court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“uniformity in the treatment of a given patent,”
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.