Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• applying presumption of eligibility in Section 101 challenge but noting that it “has less significance in the context of a largely legal determination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Broadband ITV, Inc. v. Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLC
  D. Hawaii· 2015-09-29· cited 6×
• Listingbook, LLC v. Market Leader, Inc.
  M.D. North Carolina· 2015-11-13· cited 5×
• SkillSurvey, Inc. v. Checkster LLC
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-03-31· cited 3×
• Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2017-05-11· cited 3×
• Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2015-09-15· cited 2×
• Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2018-02-20· cited 2×
• Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.
  D. Hawaii· 2015-09-29· cited 1×

Cites

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

• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2007-04-30· cited 1,310×
• Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2012-03-20· cited 915×
• Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
  Supreme Court· 2011-06-09· cited 825×
• Bilski v. Kappos
  Supreme Court· 2010-06-28· cited 573×
• Diamond v. Diehr
  Supreme Court· 1981-03-03· cited 498×
• Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-08-04· cited 384×
• Diamond v. Chakrabarty
  Supreme Court· 1980-06-16· cited 377×
• Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2013-06-13· cited 363×
• Parker v. Flook
  Supreme Court· 1978-06-22· cited 347×
• Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2014-11-14· cited 347×
• The Standard Oil Company, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. American Cyanamid Company, Appellee/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1985-09-25· cited 330×
• Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1991-12-26· cited 310×
• 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×
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-05-13· cited 168×
• Wyers v. Master Lock Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-07-22· cited 165×
• CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-05-10· cited 121×
• Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-06-12· cited 100×
• Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-12· cited 84×
• King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labels, Inc
  Federal Circuit· 2010-08-02· cited 75×
• Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-10-22· cited 58×

Other cases named Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2018-02-20· cited 2×