Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
797 F.3d 1318 · 2015
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Camp v. Pitts
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A digital frequency jittering circuit for varying the switching frequency of a power supply, comprising: an oscillator for generating a signal having a switching frequency, the oscillator having a control input for varying the switching frequency; a digital to analog converter coupled to the control input for varying the switching frequency; and a counter coupled to the output of the oscillator, the digital to analog converter coupled to the counter, the counter causing the digital to analog converter to adjust the control input and to vary the switching frequency of the power supply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in claim 1, the board rejected Power Integrations' argument that Habetler did not anticipate because it includes an EPROM between the counter and the digital to analog converter. See Power Integrations II , 2010 Pat. App. LEXIS 19305, at . The board further rejected Power Integrations' argument that Habetler failed to disclose the claimed primary and secondary voltage sources. See id. at -15. After the board denied its petition for rehearing, Power Integrations appealed to this court. We vacated the board's decision, stating that it had”
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.