green
Positive treatment
16.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Nuijten
Tool Works, Inc., 396 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005), vacated 547 U.S. 28 , 126 S.Ct. 1281 , 164 L.Ed.2d 26 (2006) ("It is the duty of a court of appeals to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule them.”). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Nuijten
Tool Works, Inc., 396 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005), vacated 547 U.S. 28 , 126 S.Ct. 1281 , 164 L.Ed.2d 26 (2006) ("It is the duty of a court of appeals to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule them."). [6] Of course, such a signal could be stored for later use, but the result of such storage would be a "storage medium" containing the signal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zoltek Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States
(2×)
Tool Works, Inc., 396 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005), ce rt. granted, -U.S. -, 125 S.Ct 2937 , 162 L.Ed.2d 865 (2005). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zoltek Corp. v. United States
Tool Works, Inc., 396 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
(2×)
Placing special reliance on our decisions in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 (1947), and Loew’s, 371 U. S. 38 , as well as our Jefferson Parish dictum, and after taking note of the academic criticism of those cases, it concluded that the “fundamental error” in petitioners’ submission was its disregard of “the duty of a court of appeals to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule them.” 396 F. 3d, at 1351.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
(2×)
No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 18 , 104 S.Ct. 1551 , 80 L.Ed.2d 2 (1984) ("any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact"); In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation, 203 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2000) ("patent alone does not demonstrate market power"); Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. 396 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2005) ("the Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption of market power in patent tying cases"), cert. g…
cited
Cited "see"
Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
See 396 F.3d 1342 , 1349-51 (Fed.Cir.2005), rev’d by Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 , 126 S.Ct. 1281 , 164 L.Ed.2d 26 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Independent Ink
v.
Illinois Tool Works
v.
Illinois Tool Works
2004-1196.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Feb 2, 2005.
396 F.3d 1342
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Florida (1)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
ERRATA
February 2, 2005
Appeal No. 04-1196
Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
Decided: January 25, 2005 Precedential Opinion
Please make the following correction:
On page 19 of the opinion, change the twelfth line to read: “AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED”.