MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.3d 1373 · 2018
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino · Gross v. Irtz · SKF USA Inc. v. United States · B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]ssue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts . Rather, where a single issue is before a court and an administrative agency, preclusion also often applies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On remand, the Board must consider whether the dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21 can survive the unpatentability of claims 1 and 17 from which they depend in view of the prior art cited in the '728 IPR.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must decide whether the remaining claims present materially different issues that alter the question of patentability, making them patentably distinct from [the independent] claims”
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.