572 F. Supp. 2d 1019 - Alloc, Inc. v. Pergo, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To demonstrate standing under Article III, a plaintiff ... must allege an “ ‘injury in fact’- — -an invasion of a legally protected interest.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).... The Patent Act provides that only “[a] patentee shall have a remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 281 ; Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 240 F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed.Cir.2001). Under 35 U.S.C. § 100 (d), “... ‘patentee’ includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.” Exclusive licensees holding all substantial rights to the patent meet this standard. Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2000).... “Unlike the patentee or the transferee of all substantial rights in the patent ... an exclusive licensee ordinarily may not sue in its own name alone, but must join the patent owner in an action brought against an accused infringer.” Propat Int’l Corp. v. RPost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187, 1193 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing Indep. Wireless Tele. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 269 U.S. 459, 464, 468-69 , 46 S.Ct. 166 , 70 L.Ed. 357 (1926)). In contrast, a “bare licensee ... lacks standing ... [and] cannot cure its lack of standing by joining the patentee as a party.” Propat, 473 F.3d at 1193 -94 (citing Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., 248 F.3d 1333, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2001)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 572 F. Supp. 2d 1024 - Alloc, Inc. v. Pergo, Inc.