Dun & Bradstreet Software Services, Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.3d 197 · 2002
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Stromback v. New Line Cinema (2004), Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc. (2005)
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. · Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. · Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“standard, stock, or common to a particular topic or that necessarily follow from a common theme or setting.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“those elements of a work that necessarily result[ ] from external factors inherent in the subject matter of the work.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]any state law rights that can arise in connection with instances of copyright infringement satisfy the extra element test, and thus are not preempted by section 301. These include unfair competition claims based upon breaches of confidential relationships, breaches of fiduciary duties and trade secrets. Trade secret claims often are grounded upon a defendant’s breach of a duty of trust or confidence to the plaintiff through improper disclosure of confidential material. The defendant’s breach of duty is the gravamen of such trade secret claims, and supplies the “extra element” that qualitatively distinguishes such trade secret causes of action from claims for copyright infringement that are based solely upon copying.”
2 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.