Rustevader Corp. v. Cowatch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “The line between cases that “arise under” the patent law and those that present only state law contract issues, is “a very subtle one,” Arthur Young & Co. v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 967 , 969 n. 2 (4th Cir.1990) (quoting Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice . & Procedure § 3582, at 307 (1984)), and the question leads down “one of the darkest corridors of the law of federal courts and federal jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Donald S. Chisum, The Allocation of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts in Patent Litigation, 46 Wash.L.Rev. 633, 639 (1971)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 F. Supp. 2d 998 - Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.

2. “evidence” of an attorney’s affidavit, we disagree with its analysis. We regard the affidavits of John Swan (for Baker Energy) and James Gary McLeod (for Reading & Bates) not as evidence, but as briefs on Canadian law. 17 . See Tex Civ. Peac. & Rem Code Ann. § 36.005(b)(7). 18 . Tex Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 36.005(b)(3)(emphasis added). 19 . We recognize that federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over every cause of action relating to a patent. For example, it is well settled that an action based on a contract, which involves underlying patent rights, does not “arise under”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp.