Xerox Corp v. 3Com Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. · Rite-Hite Corporation Hmh Hoj Rb We v. Kelley Company Inc · Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co. · Consolidated Aluminum Corporation v. Foseco International Limited · Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even if spatial relationships are used to group words [in Burr], the symbols are distinguished and recognized without reference to where a previous symbol was written.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]efinitive recognition does not require a permanent, unalterable choice of a symbol that cannot be changed if the recognition is later determined to be erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“subsequent action by the user or subsequent processing by the computer to delete or replace [the] symbol does not negate . . . recognition.”
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.