In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 559 · 1994
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. (1995), Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton (2000)
14 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 26 U.S.C. § 162 · 29 U.S.C. § 187 (§ 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Keene Corp. v. United States · In re Disbarment of Morrison · Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. · Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each item of general expense contributed to the production of the infringing items in issue and offer a fair and acceptable formula for allocating a given portion of overhead to the particular infringing items at issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is settled law that the income tax paid on profits is not deductible where infringement was conscious and deliberate. See L.P. Larson, Jr. Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97 , 48 S.Ct. 449 , 72 L.Ed. 800 (1928); Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 106 (2d Cir.1951); Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., [ 106 F.2d 45, 53 (2d Cir.1939) ]. In Larson, a case of a willful infringer, the Supreme Court held that the defendant could not deduct federal income and excess profits taxes from its gross income in determining the net profit for which it was liable. 277 U.S. 97, 99-100 , 48 S.Ct. 449 , [449] 72 L.Ed. 800 . But the Court carefully limited the breadth of its holding where the circumstances of the infringer’s conduct dictated that such a tax deduction would be proper. See id. In Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Detroit Trust Co., 44 F.2d 958, 965 (7th Cir.1930), a patent infringement case, the Seventh Circuit interpreted Larson’s caveat to stand for the proposition that in the ease of a nonwillful infringer, such an income tax deduction would be appropriate. In Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Zenith-Detroit Corp., 73 F.2d 62, 65 (2d Cir.1934), cert. dismissed, 294 U.S. 735 , 55 S.Ct. 509 , 79 L.Ed. 1263 (1935), citing both Larson and Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Detroit Trust Co., we ruled that in the case of a nonwillful patent infringer an income tax deduction would be appropriate. * * * In appropriate cases therefore we include income tax ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any doubts resulting from an infringer's failure to present adequate proof of its costs are resolved in favor of the copyright holder.”
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.