Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
256 F.3d 1323 · 2001
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 75 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 331 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp. (2002), Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (2004)
90 federal appellate · 75 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 Singleton v. Wulff · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
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 331 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to `particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.' 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A deviation may be necessary if “a pat-entee [has chosen] to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 , 39 USPQ2d at 1576. A deviation may also be necessary if a patentee has “relinquished [a] potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a reference.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 , 52 USPQ2d 1109, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1999).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We recognize that there is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification." Co-mark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 , 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed.Cir. 1998). In locating this "fine line" it is useful to remember that we look "to the specification to ascertain the meaning of the claim term as it is used by the inventor in the context of the entirety of his invention,” and not merely to limit a claim term. Id. at 1187 , 156 F.3d 1182 , 48 USPQ2d at 1005.”
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.