Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.3d 1364 · 2014
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]laim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not enough ... to identify some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“highly subjective and, on its face, provides little guidance to one of skill in the art.”
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.