CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Cellco Partnership

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that parties are not entitled to summary judgment on unasserted claims
• “Civix [was] undeniably] familiar[] with the events in the Colorado and NavTech litigation.”
• “Because the asserted patents did not exist at the time of [the alleged notice], it is impossible for that [notice] to communicate the specific charge of infringement required by the Federal Circuit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)
  N.D. Texas· 2012-01-18· cited 11×
• Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
  D. Rhode Island· 2009-09-29· cited 5×
• Renhcol Inc. v. DON BEST STORTS
  E.D. Texas· 2008-04-28· cited 4×
• RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
  W.D. Texas· 2007-05-17· cited 3×
• Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2007-02-01· cited 3×
• Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2008-12-29· cited 3×
• Civix-DDI, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
  N.D. Illinois· 2010-02-01· cited 3×
• Zimmer Technology, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  N.D. Indiana· 2007-02-22· cited 1×
• Hudson v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International
  N.D. Illinois· 2009-09-15· cited 1×
• Hudson v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N INTERN.
  N.D. Illinois· 2009-09-15

Cites

64 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
  Supreme Court· 1997-03-03· cited 1,430×
• Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1999-06-23· cited 590×
• Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-03-15· cited 461×
• Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1986-09-19· cited 449×
• Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1987-11-06· cited 390×
• Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. coolsavings.com, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-05-08· cited 360×
• Ntp, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-02· cited 302×
• Malec v. Sanford
  N.D. Illinois· 2000-03-07· cited 260×
• Samuel Gart v. Logitech, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-06-26· cited 225×
• National Presto Industries, Inc. v. The West Bend Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1996-02-12· cited 213×
• Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc. (Formerly Known as Chemque Canada, Ltd.) and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2002-11-04· cited 213×
• Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-03-31· cited 189×
• Dr. Sakharam D. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol Inc. And Bard Access Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-05-03· cited 188×
• Critikon, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-09-24· cited 176×
• Susan M. Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., and Prange Way, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-08-28· cited 164×
• Christian S. Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Company, Doing Business as Renaissance Chicago Hotel and Marriott International, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 2002-09-20· cited 157×
• Thomas Amadio v. Ford Motor Company
  Seventh Circuit· 2001-02-01· cited 150×