Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), which was initiated with a complaint by the University and CTI. After the ITC dismissed the complaint, the Illinois district court lifted the stay on September 25, 2001. On April 2, 2002, the Illinois district court granted Fujitsu's motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 22, 2002, Fujitsu filed its answer asserting affirmative defenses to the University's and CTI's patent infringement complaint, and bringing thirteen counterclaims against CTI. Among its affirmative defenses, Fujitsu asserted”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“between Fujitsu and Competitive; Eighth Counterclaim: Fraud based on allegedly intentional concealment of [] and on representation that [] Ninth Counterclaim: Negligent misrepresentation based on same alleged misrepresentations as Eighth Counterclaim; Tenth Counterclaim: Unfair competition re '349 Patent based on filing of patent infringement complaint before the ITC that was allegedly”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.