730 F. Supp. 2d 349 - Xpoint Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Erickson v. Pardus · Christopher Former Secretary of State et al. v. Harbury · Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that plaintiff owns the patent; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling, and using the device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an injunction and damages.” Xpoint Technologies, 730 F.Supp.2d at 352 (quoting McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1357 ) (quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also Vellata, LLC, 2011 WL 61620 , at (”
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.