Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.3d 1321 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 18 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. · Intel Corporation v. US International Trade Commission
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“contributes to the infringement of one or more claims of the '037 patent by making, selling, or offering to sell components of systems, including single-cup coffeemakers, single-cup coffee products, and disposable brew baskets, which [Hamilton] knows constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the '037 patent, and which [Hamilton] knows are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use; rather, the components are used for or in systems that infringe one or more claims of the '037 patent. ... [Hamilton] induces the infringement of one or more claims of the '037 patent by intentionally advising and/or instructing third parties that purchase its systems to operate the systems in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the '037 patent. ... [Hamilton] knew or had reason to know that the use of its systems by third parties would infringe the '.037 patent, and with full knowledge of the '037 patent, contributed to or induced the infringement of the '037 patent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an accused product operates in accordance with [the] standard” as "[o]nly in the situation where a patent covers every possible implementation of a standard will it be enough to prove infringement by showing standard compliance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f a district court construes the claims and finds that the reach of the claims includes any device that practices a standard, then this can be sufficient for a finding of infringement.”
3 later decisions 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.