Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.3d 1229 · 2016
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 314
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l · Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. · Bilski v. Kappos · Bilski v. Kappos
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not address this argument regarding whether the first prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301 (b) was met, as we affirm the Board's determination on the second prong of the regulation ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art”
2 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.