Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 F.3d 1343 - Amazoncom Inc v. Barnesandnoblecom Inc Barnesandnoblecom Llc

Amazoncom Inc v. Barnesandnoblecom Inc Barnesandnoblecom Llc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

195
cited by 195 later decisions
July 2024
most recently cited

54 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States (2010), RhinoCorps Ltd. v. United States (2009)

54 district ·

1090200020102020decided

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 MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · White v. Dunbar · SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp. · WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

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

  1. “In resisting a preliminary injunction ... one need not make out a case of actual invalidity. Vulnerability is the issue at the preliminary injunction stage, while validity is the issue at trial. The showing of a substantial question as to invalidity thus requires less proof than the clear and convincing showing necessary to establish invalidity itself. When moving for the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction, a patentee need not establish the validity of a patent beyond question. The patentee must, however, present a clear case supporting the validity of the patent in suit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the injunction’s favorable impact on the public interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Plaintiff must] establish both of the first two factors, i.e., likelihood of success and irreparable harm, to receive a preliminary injunction.”
    3 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.