Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Technology Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.3d 775 · 2002
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc. (2004), Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005)
22 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 701 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Reiter v. Cooper · Whittaker Corporation v. Execuair Corporation · United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a prudential doctrine under which courts may, under appropriate circumstances, determine that the initial decisionmaking responsibility should be performed by the relevant agency rather than the courts.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is an administrative process for cancellation, albeit ill-defined, in the Copyright Office. Referral ... is therefore appropriate for the Register of Copyrights to determine to what extent administrative cancellation remedies are available to third parties who seek registration cancellation. In sum, this case requires the resolution of an issue within the jurisdiction of an administrative body exercising statutory and comprehensive regulatory authority over a national activity that requires expertise and uniformity in administration.”
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.