Asyst Technologies Inc v. Empak Inc Emtrak Inc Jenoptik Ag Jenoptik Infab Inc Jenoptik Gmbh and Infab US Operations Inc Meissner & Wurst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 16 district ·

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

1. “) (quoting Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co. , 194 F.3d 1250 , 1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ). "The corresponding structure to a function set forth in a means-plus-function limitations must actually perform the recited function, not merely enable the pertinent structure to operate as intended.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sukup Mfg. Co. v. Sioux Steel Co. · International Automated Systems, Inc. v. Digital Persona, Inc.

2. “second microcomputer means for receiving and processing digital information communicated with said respective second two-way communication means”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sukup Mfg. Co. v. Sioux Steel Co. · Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.

3. “assigns two functions to the means-controlling activities on the workstation and transmitting information to the transportable container. The written description makes clear that the first function is performed by the local process controller 20 and the second function is performed by the communication means 50. The”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. · Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc.