Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.3d 1342 · 2005
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 26 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P. (2014), Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2008)
31 federal appellate · 26 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 171 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. · United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co. · Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission · Allen Engineering Corporation v. Bartell Industries 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning. Furthermore, a difficult issue of claim construction does not ipso facto result in a holding of indefiniteness. [Citation omitted.] “If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held a claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.” [Citation omitted.] ... “By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal. ” [Citation omitted.] In this way we also follow the requirement that clear and convincing evidence be shown to invalidate a patent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise.”
2 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.