Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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. “50. Further, Henderson and Attorney Tendler submitted seven other Rule 131 declarations in support of related patent applications, in which Henderson swore that the inventions underlying those applications had been actually reduced to practice. Those inventions were not actually reduced to practice either. Response-. Denied. 66. The “prototype” is not an actual reduction to practice of the patents-in-suit. Response: Admitted that the functional prototype Henderson demonstrated in or around July 1993 to Dr. Hashimoto was not an actual reduction to practice of the inventions of the patents-in-suit; otherwise denied, because Henderson believed this functional prototype to be an actual reduction to practice of inventions of U.S. Patent No. 6,278,862, as the prototype received a message from a message originator, had a database of communicants that included information such as name, telephone number, and other information, and included a display that could show a name and telephone number upon receipt of a wireless signal. 100. The claimed invention of the ’846 application was never actually reduced to practice. Response: Admitted that neither Henderson nor Intellect Wireless actually reduced to practice the claimed inventions of the ’846 application; otherwise denied because Henderson actually reduced to practice inventions of U.S. Patent No. 6,278,862, as Henderson developed a functional prototype that received a message from a message originator, had a database of communicants ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.

2. “[t]hat the working prototype demonstration included communicating information from a calling party connected to a communications network that provided caller identifying information to a called party having a portable communication device that can receive a message ... with the caller identifying information being transmitted to the portable device through the use of a wireless network.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.

3. “... Appendix C is a picture of a han-dheld device along with a display that displayed the caller identification and associated image information transmitted via the wireless network.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.