Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.3d 1034 · 2016
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“show by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] determination of whether a patent claim is invalid as obvious under § 103 requires consideration of all four Graham factors, and it is error to reach a conclusion of obviousness until all those factors are considered.”
3 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.