Dixie-Vortex Co. v. Paper Container Mfg. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
130 F.2d 569 · 1942
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc. (2002), Allied Wheel Products, Inc. v. Rude (1953)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons · Williams Mfg Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation · Bassick Mfg Co v. R M Hollingshead Co Rogers · Casco Products Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We need not decide whether the patent in suit is anticipated by any one of such prior art patents. It is sufficient, we think, that the prior art disclosures are such that a person skilled in the art might readily design the improvement which Barbieri claims to have made. The improvement thus made would not, in our judgment, amount to invention, and the claims in suit are therefore invalid.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * but that, by the same token, defendant is not estopped to prove that its devices are built wholly according to the teaching of the prior art and that everything necessary to their conception and construction was taught by such art, for such proof clearly negatives infringement. In other words if everything in defendant's construction was taught by the prior art and nothing included therein other than the application of such art, plus ordinary mechanical skill, then the mere fact that the device constructed reads upon the claims of patents, the validity of which it is estopped to deny, does not spell infringement. Our conception of our obligation, therefore, is that we must examine the prior art not only to determine the scope of plaintiff's invention but also to determine whether what is built by defendant springs entirely therefrom.”
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.