Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.3d 1366 · 2008
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 23 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. · Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whereas the invention did not require a built-in display and keyboard). .TomTom presents no argument or evidence why the phrase”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] patentee may limit the meaning of a claim term by making a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“requiring a portable display and keyboard”
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.