Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
457 F.3d 1279 · 2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2023
2 federal appellate ·
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 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical Inc · United States v. Microsoft Corp. · Cange v. Stotler & Co. · Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. · International Rectifier Corporation v. Ixys Corporation
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”
1 later decision 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.