Typeright Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
374 F.3d 1151 · 2004
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010), Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company (2005)
27 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Diamond v. Charles · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Cardinal Chemical Company v. Morton International Inc · Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the relationship between the corroborating witness and the alleged prior user, (2) the time period between the event and [the giving of the testimony], (3) the interest of the corroborating witness in the subject matter in suit, (4) [the] contradiction or impeachment of the witnesses testimony, (5) the extent and details of the corroborating testimony, (6) the witness’ familiarity with the subject matter of the patented invention and the prior use, (7) [the] probability that a prior use could occur considering the state of the art at the time, [and] (8) [the], impact of the invention on the industry, and the commercial value of its practice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] party that is not adversely affected by a judgment lacks standing to [cross-appeal].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Summary judgment should not be denied simply because the opposing party asserts that the movants witnesses are not to be believed. However, summary judgment is not appropriate where the opposing party offers specific facts that call into question the credibility of the movants witnesses”
1 later decision 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.