Kropa v. Robie’s Empirical Analysis
187 F.2d 150 · 1951
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Loctite Corporation v. Ultraseal Ltd (1985), Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation (1984)
30 federal appellate · 14 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 Hansgirg v. Kemmer · In re Draeger · Hall v. Shimadzu · Saklatwalla v. Marburg
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claims or counts”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case before us, the words “An abrasive article” are essential to point out the invention defined by the counts. In our judgment those introductory words give life and meaning to the counts, for it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim .... If, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.