Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 784 · 2010
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 10 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. · Electro Medical Systems, S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc. · 02 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To show that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated, the accused infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of a claimed invention.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“unless the specification-makes clear that the - patentee intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive”) (internal quotation marks omitted). . The indefinite Defendants argue that the disputed phrase fails on indefiniteness grounds, as evidenced by the fact that Otsu-ka’s contention that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t is a claimant's burden to keep the district court clearly apprised of what parts of its claim it wishes to pursue and which parts, if any, it wishes to reserve for another day.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.