Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.3d 1313 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 252
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. · Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc. · Kcj Corporation v. Kinetic Concepts Inc Kci Therapeutic Services 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he examiner's finding under the broadest reasonable interpretation that the claims are not limited to 'seek acoustic noise' cannot be dispositive. To the extent that the district court adopted this reasoning wholesale without accounting for the differences between the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and Phillips , the court erred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are substantially identical.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“do not necessarily compel a conclusion that the scope of the claims has been substantively changed,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.