Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 548 F.3d 1004 - Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

548 F.3d 1004 · 2008

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2020

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

190200820102020decided

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. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 285

Relies on Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co · Cr Bard Inc v. M3 Systems Inc · Braun Medical Inc v. Abbott Laboratories Np · Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc. · Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “conduct was so inconsistent with an intent to enforce its rights as to induce a reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. · Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  2. “from the desire to restrain practices that did not in themselves violate any law, but that drew anticompetitive strength from the patent right, and thus was deemed to be contrary to public policy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Sycamore Ip Holdings LLC v. At & T Corp.
  3. “[f|orc[ed] a party [he. Amphastar] to accept a license and pay whatever fee the licensor demands, or to undergo the uncertainty and cost of litigation”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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.