Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F.3d 633 - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.3d 633 · 2015

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
July 2024
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 283

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he public interest nearly always weighs in favor of protecting property rights in the absence of countervailing factors, especially when the patentee practices his inventions.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “). Plaintiffs have successfully shown that the absence of the infringing features of the '629 Patent would have either prevented the introduction of ColorSnap to the market, or would have made the ColorSnap significantly less desirable. Plaintiffs therefore have met their burden of showing irreparable harm. 2. Inadequate Remedy at Law To show an inadequate remedy at law, the patentee must show that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The causal nexus requirement ensures that an injunction is only entered against a defendant on account of a harm resulting from the defendant's wrongful conduct, not some other reason.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.