Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• \ 'The general rules of preservation apply to Rule 32 proceedings.' Boyd v. State

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2014-06-02· cited 763×
• Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2012-12-04· cited 110×
• Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-05-13· cited 58×
• American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC
  D. Minnesota· 2010-05-13· cited 9×
• Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2011-04-28· cited 6×
• Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.
  E.D. Illinois· 2018-05-23· cited 6×
• Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2010-10-01· cited 5×
• Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
  S.D. Texas· 2012-06-26· cited 5×
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Team Technologies, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 2014-09-15· cited 4×
• Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Ltd.
  E.D. New York· 2011-12-08· cited 4×
• Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Technology Research Group, LLC
  N.D. Illinois· 2010-06-28· cited 3×
• Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2013-01-28· cited 2×
• Exmark Manufacturing Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC
  D. Nebraska· 2016-05-11· cited 1×
• Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.
  E.D. Texas· 2016-09-29· cited 1×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Amersham PLC
  S.D. New York· 2012-09-21· cited 1×

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2007-04-30· cited 1,310×
• A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.
  Federal Circuit· 1992-05-19· cited 585×
• Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corporation, Visa International Service Association, Inc., Visa Usa, Inc. And Crestar Bank, Inc., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1999-08-27· cited 245×
• Datamize, L.L.C. v. Plumtree Software, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-05· cited 220×
• Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-07-14· cited 191×
• Ims Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc. And Gene Francis Haas, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2000-03-27· cited 145×
• Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios
  Fifth Circuit· 2007-08-01· cited 128×
• Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-03-21· cited 122×
• Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing, l.p.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-10-05· cited 116×
• Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-06-28· cited 114×
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, and Hyosung Corporation and Hyosung (America), Inc., Intervenors
  Federal Circuit· 2003-10-23· cited 105×
• Young v. Lumenis, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-06-27· cited 91×
• Cravens L. Wanlass, Energystics, Inc. And Wanlass International, Inc. v. General Electric Company
  Federal Circuit· 1998-08-10· cited 77×
• Cortland Line Company, Inc. v. The Orvis Company, Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2000-02-14· cited 56×
• Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-12-09· cited 55×
• Abb Robotics, Inc. And Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Gmfanuc Robotics Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-05-22· cited 45×
• Christian J. Jansen, Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-09-08· cited 35×
• The Johns Hopkins University v. Datascope Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-10-02· cited 30×