Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 FSUPP3D 335 - IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2019

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Gottschalk v. Benson · Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l · Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “are not properly considered in determining a motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility under § 101. Every patent that is issued is generally (and often specifically) issued over prior art references and is found to be novel.”
    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.