Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district ·

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It seems readily apparent from the language of the 1995 Settlement Agreement that the parties anticipated that Papst would retain the right to sue Mi-nebea’s customers for direct infringement of the Papst Drive Patents. This was reiterated throughout the 1995 Settlement Agreement and is evidenced in the [1993] Loan Agreement as well. * * * * * * The Court has no doubt, given the language of the [1995 Settlement Agreement], that Papst fully intended to preserve to itself the right to sue customers of Minebea in connection with their infringement of these patents, and the Court is hard-pressed to see how Mine-bea could not have been aware of Papst’s intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 - Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst

2. “Papst ... agree[s] not to assert any claim or prosecute any action, suit or proceeding against Minebea ... for contributory infringement or inducement of infringement of any Papst Patent or Papst Drive Patent; provided, however, that this provision shall not bar Papst from the legal right to assert an infringement claim against a Minebea customer or subsequent purchaser or user for direct infringement of a Papst Drive Patent, other than a Papst Integrated Baseplate Patent, or for direct infringement of a Papst Patent if acts of such customer or subsequent purchaser or user first result in the direct infringement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 - Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst

3. “To demonstrate ... that any given Papst Dnve Patent is exhausted by the sale of any given motor, and assuming, due to the actions taken by Papst, that the motor in question contributes to or induces the infringement of a Papst Drive Patent, Minebea must demonstrate (a) that a hard disk drive cannot be constructed using the motor in question without infringing a Papst Drive Patent because the motor is the “essential feature” of the Papst Drive Patents and (b) that there is no other noninfring-ing use — outside of the realm of hard disk drives — to which the motor can reasonably be put.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 - Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst