N.D. California· 11/18/2008
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
Citations
- 586 F. Supp. 2d 1190
- 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93780
- 2008 WL 4943034
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Single-brand markets are, at a minimum, extremely rare.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: William Alsup
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.N.D. California· 2010-04-23· cited 23×
- Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.N.D. California· 2010-08-10· cited 20×
- Dang v. San Francisco Forty NinersN.D. California· 2013-08-02· cited 6×
- Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLCD. Nevada· 2016-10-19· cited 4×
- The Apple Ipod Itunes Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2011-05-19· cited 2×
- Packaging Systems, Inc. v. PRC-Desoto International, Inc.C.D. California· 2017-07-14· cited 2×
- U.S. Ring Binder L.P. v. World Wide Stationery Manufacturing Co.N.D. Ohio· 2011-08-19· cited 1×
- Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLCC.D. California· 2013-04-16· cited 1×
Cites
32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court· 1986-07-01· cited 9,423×
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court· 2002-02-26· cited 8,748×
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 1,936×
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court· 1992-06-08· cited 1,717×
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court· 1999-04-08· cited 1,311×
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court· 1956-06-11· cited 1,304×
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court· 1984-03-27· cited 891×
- Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1997-05-23· cited 672×
- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillanSupreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 668×
- Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office SolutionNinth Circuit· 2008-01-23· cited 569×
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.D.C. Circuit· 2001-06-28· cited 502×
- Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLPSupreme Court· 2004-01-13· cited 412×
- Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.Third Circuit· 1997-08-27· cited 283×
- John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & HowellNinth Circuit· 1987-02-25· cited 222×
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Supreme Court· 2006-03-01· cited 216×
- Nifty Foods Corporation v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. And Pet IncorporatedSecond Circuit· 1980-01-24· cited 138×
- Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay 'N Pak Stores, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1989-05-22· cited 124×
- United Distribution Companies v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Windward Energy & Marketing Company, IntervenorsD.C. Circuit· 1996-10-29· cited 123×
- Rhiannon Tanaka v. University of Southern California Michael Garrett Daryl Gross Pacific-10 Conference National Collegiate Athletic AssociationNinth Circuit· 2001-06-07· cited 110×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.