Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. Playerlync, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l · Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. · Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
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.
“[f]or a computer to 'impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the patent [did] not disclose any specialized programming or other specific technology for accomplishing [the claimed] functions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“equivalent to those one could take in the physical world.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.