98 F. Supp. 2d 538 - NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. · Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc. · Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc. · Eastman Kodak Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a source of electrical energy ... that requires at least two power supply lines to deliver power in an electrical circuit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“determined by a voltage of said underlying substrate regions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“negative with respect to said first power supply”
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.