Xerox Corporation v. 3com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corp., and Palm Computing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “We ... affirm the [district] court’s claim construction that (1) the definition of “unistrokes” itself does not require an entire alphabet, (2) the term “unistroke symbols” requires sufficient graphical separation that the computer can definitively recognize a symbol immediately upon delimitation or pen lift, and (3) “spatial independence” requires the accused device to be capable of properly distinguishing and recognizing symbols without reference to where a previous symbol was written on the writing surface.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 F. Supp. 2d 283 - Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp.

2. “There is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words are used in separate claims. To the extent that the absence of such differ ence in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim differentiation states the presumption that the difference between claims is significant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 267 F. Supp. 2d 1190 - Golden Voice Technology & Training, L.L.C. v. Rockwell FirstPoint Contact Corp.

3. “since none of the Graffiti symbols are altered by subsequent strokes. Id. Third, we held that the court had erred in concluding that Graffiti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Xerox Corporation v. 3com Corporation