Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
543 F.3d 683 · 2008
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010), Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (2009)
27 federal appellate · 22 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“under the district court's construction of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The market for baseband chips is unlike the typical market for consumer goods where competitors compete for each consumer sale, and the competition is instantaneous and on-going.... Competition for sales is not on a unit-by-unit basis, but rather competition is characterized by competing for “design wins” for the development and production of cell phones which will embody the proposed chip.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”
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.