Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 F.3d 1372 - Prima Tek II Llc Highland Supply Corporation Highland Manufacturing and Sales Company Prima Tek v. A-Roo Company a-Roo Company

Prima Tek II Llc Highland Supply Corporation Highland Manufacturing and Sales Company Prima Tek v. A-Roo Company a-Roo Company’s Empirical Analysis

222 F.3d 1372 · 2000

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
1
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably American Federation of Government Employees v. United States (2001), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010)

49 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions

840200020102020decided

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 Warth v. Seldin · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain · Waterman v. Mackenzie · Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. · Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works

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

  1. “Whether a party has standing to sue is a question that this court reviews de novo.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A transfer of ‘title’ to a patent—also called an assignment—is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 261 , which states that: Applica tions for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.”
    2 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.