Himes v. Chadwick’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.2d 100 · 1952
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention. And the improvement of one part of an old combination gives no right to claim that improvement in combination with other old parts which perform no new function in the combination.”
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.