Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 297 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lamont v. New Jersey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lamont v. New Jersey Anchor | green | “a dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” | 222 |
| 2 | Williams v. Borough of West Chester | green | “must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance.” | 38 |
| 3 | Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc. | green | “a party must prove invalidity for lack of written description by clear and convincing evidence.” | 13 |
| 4 | Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. And North American Lighting, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC and Jens Ole Sorensen | green | “repeatedly explained that a patent applicant does not need to include in the specification that which is already known to and available to one of ordinary skill in the art.” | 10 |
| 5 | Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc. | green | “enablement is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations.” | 9 |
| 6 | Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc. | green | “a party must prove invalidity for lack of enablement by clear and convincing evidence.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.