Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.3d 10 · 2012
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Hormel v. Helvering · eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) royalties the patentee has received for licensing the patent to others; (2) rates paid by the licensee for the use of comparable patents; (3) the nature and scope of the license (exclusive or non-exclusive, restricted or nonrestricted by territory or product type); (4) any established policies or marketing programs by the licensor to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing to others to use the invention or granting licenses under special conditions to maintain the monopoly; (5) the commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as whether they are competitors; (6) the effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; (7) the duration of the patent license term; (8) the established profitability of the product made under the patent, including its commercial success and current popularity; (9) the utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices; (10) the nature of the patented invention and benefits to those who have used the invention; (11) the extent to which the infringer has used the invention and the value of that use; (12) the portion of profit or of the selling price that may be customary in that particular business to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions; (13) the portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as opposed to its nonpatented elements; (14) the opinion testimony of qualified experts; (15) the results of a hypo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When reviewing damages in patent cases, we apply regional circuit law to procedural issues and Federal Circuit law to substantive and procedural issues pertaining to patent law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a rule, 'prejudgment interest should be awarded under [ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ] absent some justification for withholding such an award.'”
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.