Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. · Electro Medical Systems, S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc. · Amarel · Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
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.
“The use of the word 'comprising' only means that the plugstrip must have at least all six of the claimed elements, but not that all six elements must be contained in a single enclosure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court incorrectly interpreted the term 'comprising' in claim 15 of the '543 patent to require that all six elements must be contained inside a single enclosure.”
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.