Encomp, Inc. v. L-Com, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co · Geders v. United States · Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc. · Standard Oil Company v. American Cyanamid Company · Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant has established through clear and convincing evidence viewed in the totality of the circumstances, which plaintiff has barely attempted to rebut, that plaintiffs suit was frivolously brought in that it failed to assess defens es that would essentially have precluded its claims. Since defendant has proved its entitlement to attorney’s fees under Section 285 based on the foregoing discussion, its other arguments need not be reached.”
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.