Datapoint Corp. v. Standard Microsystems Corp.’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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(as opposed to process or otherwise manipulate) every communication, simply reflects the inherent fact that each node must”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp. · Dynacore Holdings Corporation v. US Philips Corporation Jvc Pc Nec Ads

2. “As used in Claim 31, ‘node’ and ‘frame’ play off each other. Claim 31 repeatedly requires the communication of data frames between nodes. It requires communicating ‘frames containing data between all of the nodes’ at one capability and communicating ‘frames containing data between at least two nodes’ at another capability, so as to achieve a substantially different form of ‘data frame communication over the medium between enhanced nodes’ than the form of ‘data frame communication over the medium achieved between nodes’ at the common capability. As used in this claim, ‘data frame’ communication between ‘nodes’ refers to the sending and receiving of frames formulated above the physical layer using destination addresses and communicated between nodes having such addresses. It does not encompass maintenance or link integrity signals that may be passed individually between link partners in a network to test link integrity or establish communication rates or other details of physical layer link partner relations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.

3. “Datapoint’s proposed definition [of frames containing data as ‘only a series of signals that are applied by a node to a communication medium,’] is better suited to frames than to ‘frames containing data .... ’ The written description in the ’732 patent facially distinguishes ‘frames containing data’ from simple ‘frames.’ One may readily observe ... that ‘frames containing data’ are groups of frames — e.g., inquiry frames, response frames, data packet frames, and token frames — that achieve given network functionality. Consequently, it does not appear to us ... that the Special Master’s claim construction in any way limits the term ‘frames containing data’ to a specific type of frame. Rather, it properly recognizes the inherent distinction between ‘frames’ and ‘frames containing data.’ Accordingly, the Special Master’s construction of ‘frames containing data’ was correct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.