Virtualagility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
759 F.3d 1307 · 2014
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1659 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 303 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 324 · 35 U.S.C. § 326
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Landis v. North American Co. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor · Nken v. Holder · Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court erred as a matter of law to the extent that it decided to “review” the PTAB’s determination that the claims of the ... patent are more likely than not invalid in the posture of a ruling on a motion to stay. Under the statutory scheme, district courts have no role in reviewing the PTAB’s determinations regarding the patentability of claims that are subject to CBM proceedings. ... Congress clearly did not intend district courts to hold mini-trials review ing the PTAB’s decision on the merits of the CBM review. To do so would overwhelm and dramatically expand the nature of the stay determination. If the district court were required to “review” the merits of the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM proceeding as part of its stay determination, it would undermine the purpose of the stay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We note at the outset that it was not error for the district court to wait until the PTAB made its decision to institute CBM review before it ruled on the motion. Indeed, while some district courts ruled on motions to stay before the PTAB granted the petition for post-grant review, others have waited until post-grant review was instituted, and still others denied as premature the motion to stay without prejudice to refiling after institution of post-grant review. We express no opinion on which is the better practice. While a motion to stay could be granted even before the PTAB rules on a post-grant review petition, no doubt the ease for a stay is stronger after post-grant review has been instituted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, a challenge to the PTAB’s “more likely than not” determination at this stage amounts to an improper collateral attack on the PTAB’s decision to institute CBM review, and allowing it would create serious practical problems .... Congress clearly did not intend district courts to hold mini-trials reviewing the PTAB’s decision on the merits of the CBM review.... The stay determination is not the time or the place to review the PTAB’s decisions to institute a CBM proceeding.”
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.