Linear Technology Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Alaska v. United States · Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. · Ohse v. Hughes · Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation · Huebner v. United States
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that LTC engaged in substantial preparatory activity prior to the formal release of the LT1070 on November 18, 1985, including seeking feedback from its sales representatives and distributors regarding the pricing of the LT1070 and the publication of data sheets and other promotional materials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he use of the preliminary data sheets establishes that discussions between LTC sales representatives and end-user customers extended beyond merely nebulous or indefinite discussions about a possible sale,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“presented the information about the LT1070 so that the sales representatives and international distributors would identify and familiarize themselves with customers who might be able to use the LT1070.”
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.