Phillips v. AWH Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.3d 1303 · 2005
Citation profile
497 federal appellate · 326 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,703 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. (2006), Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016)
497 federal appellate · 326 district · 3 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
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Wainwright v. Sykes
Cited together with MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical 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 1,703 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
116 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.”
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.”
46 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.