Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 F.3d 1272 - Advanced Display Systems Inc Bao Gang Wu v. Kent State University Kent Research Corporation Kent Display Systems Inc

Advanced Display Systems Inc Bao Gang Wu v. Kent State University Kent Research Corporation Kent Display Systems Inc’s Empirical Analysis

212 F.3d 1272 · 2000

Citation profile

260
cited by 260 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 70 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 260 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom Inc (2001), NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. (2005)

64 federal appellate · 70 district ·

1580200020102020decided

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 Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. · Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant

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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “those instructions were legally erroneous,”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a] patent may not be obtained ... if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
    4 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.