Microstrategy Incorporated v. Business Objects Sa’s Empirical Analysis
429 F.3d 1344 · 2005
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 13 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · United States v. Menasche · Phillips v. AWH Corp.
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.
“need not consider every possible factor to render a 'reliable' opinion, the expert still must consider enough factors to make his or her opinion sufficiently reliable in the eyes of the court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court reviews the district court's grant or denial of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If . . . even one claim limitation is missing or not met, there is no literal infringement.”
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.