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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 28 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 Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Anchor | green | “clear and convincing evidence.” | 14 |
| 2 | Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc. | green | “the relevant art is defined by the nature of the problem confronting the would-be inventor.” | 8 |
| 3 | Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. | green | “invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the new generic drug for which the anda is submitted” | 6 |
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.