5 F. Supp. 2d 238 - Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. · American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. · Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; (3) intentional interference which induces or causes a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4)resulting damages to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.”
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.