Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 7 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In other words, does this phrase [“any component of a patented invention”] apply to components used in the performance of patented process/method inventions? Eolas Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005) recently answered this question in the affirmative, holding that every component of every form of invention deserves the protection of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (f); i.e., that “components” and “patented inventions” under § 271(f) are not limited to physical machines.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. · 418 F. Supp. 2d 1021 - Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.

2. “While it is difficult to conceive of how one might supply or cause to be supplied all or a substantial portion of the steps of a patented method in the sense contemplated by the phrase “components of a patented invention” in section 271(f), it is clear that RIM’s supply of the BlackBerry handheld devices and Redirector products to its customers in the United States is not the statutory “supply” of any “component” steps for combination into NTP’s patented methods.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

3. “RIM itself did not supply any component to a foreign affiliate.” Union Carbide, 425 F.3d at 1380 . 18 . The Supreme Court also noted that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.