Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Clair’s Empirical Analysis
123 F.2d 878 · 1941
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 1988 · most notably McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. (1965), Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Ass'n (1980)
29 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Menendez v. Holt · Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy · Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the infringing device must be substantially identical with the one alleged to be infringed in (1) the result attained; (2) the means of attaining that result; and (3) the manner in which its different parts operate and cooperate to produce that result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An inventor is not required to litigate the validity of his patent against every possible infringer. A suit pending to sustain the validity of a patent is notice to all infringers of the insistence of the patentee upon his claimed rights.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is infringement of the Campbell patent. Both No. 73 and No. 74 are substantially identical with the Campbell device in (1) result attained, (2) means of attaining that result, and (3) the manner in which their parts operate and co-operate to produce that result. To refute infringement by stabilizer No. 73, appellants insist upon two distinctions, viz.: (1) that the spring does not have ‘a bearing against said spindle arm’ as specified in claim 2 of the Campbell patent, and (2) in No. 73 the spindle arm is not ‘opposed by a substantially uniform pressure against movement in either direction.’ The first of these contentions is not tenable because the spring in No. 73, although not directly connected with the spindle arm, does, through the connecting rod to which it is attached, bear against the spindle arm. No. 73, therefore, does indirectly exactly what the Campbell device does directly. The second contention is without merit because the uniform rearward pressure of the springs in No. 73 combined with the opposition of the two springs upon the axle does result in a substantially uniform pressure against movement of the spindle arms in either direction. It is said the prior art patents, Hunt (1915), 1,164,522, and Yager (1916), 1,193,331, exclude such a broad interpretation of the Campbell patent. These patents show wire springs anchored to the middle of the front axle and attached to the connecting rod for the purpose of holding an automobile in a straight course, but t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.