Dsu Medical Corporation Medisystems Corporation v. Jms Co Ltd Jms North America Corporation Itl Pty Itl Pty’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.3d 1293 · 2006
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 75 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. (2009), i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010)
41 federal appellate · 75 district · 1 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 MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law’s reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It must be established that the defendant possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement and not merely that the defendant had knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute inducement. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements.”
7 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.