Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2018
2 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Scott Paper Company v. Scott's Liquid Gold Inc · Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc. · Fisons Horticulture Inc 93-7224 v. Vigoro Industries Inc 93-7287
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“use in a way sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as those of the adopter of the mark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reached a substantial portion of the public that might be expected to purchase the [good or] service.”
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.