Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 1301 · 2009
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 36 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 234 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (2010), Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2011)
72 federal appellate · 36 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 284
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. · Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“■Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States ... a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially, adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The royalties received by the paten-tee for the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty. 2. The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit. 3. The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive; or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold. 4. The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain his patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly. 5. The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as, whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business; or whether they are inventor and promoter. 6. The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; that existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of his non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales. 7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license. 8. The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity. 9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results. 10. The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercia”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Consideration of evidence of usage after infringement started can, under appropriate circumstances, be helpful to the jury and the court in assessing whether a royalty is reasonable. Usage (or similar) data may provide information that the parties would frequently have estimated during the negotiation. Such data might, depending on the case, come from sales projections based on past sales, consumer surveys, focus group testing, and other sources.... This quantitative information, assuming it meets admissibility requirements, ought to be given its proper weight, as determined by the circumstances of each case. On the other hand, we have never laid down any rigid requirement that damages in all circumstances be limited to specific instances of infringement proven with direct evidence. Such a strict requirement could create a hypothetical negotiation far-removed from what parties regularly do during real-world licensing negotiations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.