Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would not initiate the collection of patents issued to other companies”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reckless or negligent defendant-not a willfully deliberate one.”
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.