Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.2d 286 · 1948
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Rose 88-1634 v. Bartle a Reed W 88-1646 (1989), 257 F. Supp. 219 - Japan Gas Lighter Association v. Ronson Corp. (1966)
33 federal appellate · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Massachusetts v. Mellon · International Salt Co. v. United States · American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiff has the right to have that which it lawfully produces freely bought and sold without restraint or interference. It is a right which attaches to its product, to a particular thing — as an article of commerce — and it continues only so long as the commodity to which the right applies retains its separate identity. If in the course of trade that commodity is combined with other things in the process of the manufacture of a new commodity, the trade right in original part as an article of commerce is necessarily gone.... The situation as to plaintiff is no different than if plaintiff sold milk, from which casein is made, to its customers and they in turn made their own casein fibers which they might thereafter use in a way to infringe defendant’s patents, or in a way which would not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case however there has never been a charge of infringement made by defendant against plaintiff or any of plaintiff's customers or prospective customers by notice, threat or suit as to the sale or purchase of casein fiber or against casein fiber as such, but a claim that the purchasers of plaintiff's fibers were, by using the process encompassed by defendant's patents, performing an act of infringement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are of the opinion that the allegation and proof by a vendor that it is engaged in a course of conduct, the sale of machinery, which has brought and must bring purchasers from it into conflict with the owner of the patent is sufficient to support a suit for declaratory judgment by the vendor.” (p. 461).”
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.