Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.3d 51 · 2012
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 16 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 286 · 35 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Ashcroft v. al-Kidd · Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. · Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where small elements of multi-component products are accused of infringement, calculating a royalty on the entire product carries a considerable risk that the patentee will be improperly compensated for non-infringing components of that product.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is not enough to merely show that the [patented feature] is viewed as valuable, important, or even essential to the use of the [infringing product].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether called 'product value apportionment' or anything else, the fact remains that [SAE's proposed] royalty was expressly calculated as a percentage of the entire market value of [the G650] rather than [of SAE's power-supply units] alone. This, by definition, is an application of the entire market value rule.”
2 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.