Odetics Inc v. Storage Technology Corporation Visa International Service Association Inc Visa Usa Inc Crestar Bank Inc’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.3d 1259 · 1999
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 50 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. (2003), In re Seagate Technology, LLC (2007)
40 federal appellate · 50 district · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co · Markman v. Westview Instruments, 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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he individual components, if any, of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Rather, the claim limitation is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function.... The appropriate degree of specificity is provided by the statute itself; the relevant structure is that which “corresponds” to the claimed function. Further deconstruction or parsing is incorrect.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he statutory equivalence analysis requires a determination of whether the 'way' the assertedly substitute structure performs the claimed function, and the 'result' of that performance, is substantially different from the 'way' the claimed function is performed by the 'corresponding structure . . . described in the specification,' or its 'result.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Literal infringement of a § 112, ¶ 6 limitation requires that the relevant structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.”
6 later decisions 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.