Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.3d 1333 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Weisgram v. Marley Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A network-based sales system, comprising: at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products; at least one shopping cart computer; and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer; said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network; said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products; said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said,payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart; said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored represen”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Patentee] argues its system is superior to the [prior art] because the system of the patents in suit is adapted to the Internet, whereas the [prior art] operated on a pre-Internet network. In Mu-niauction, this court held that “conducting previously known methods through an Internet web browser was obvious because it amounted to no more than applying the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2008). Precedent agrees.. .that a person of ordinary skill could have adapted the prior art to knownbrowser capabilities when these capabilities became commonplace, and that it was obvious to do so.”
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.