Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 U.S. 301 - Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company

Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company’s Empirical Analysis

213 U.S. 301 · 1909

Citation profile

503
cited by 503 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

231 federal appellate · 84 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 503 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation (1938), Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co (1944)

231 federal appellate · 84 district · 2 state decisions

16401909191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedVictor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · McClain v. Ortmayer · Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company · Russell v. Place

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 503 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A combination is a union of elements, which may be partly old and partly new, or wholly old or wholly new. But, whether new or old, the combination is a means — an invention — distinct from them. They, if new, may be inventions and the proper subjects of patents, or they may be covered by claims in the same patent with the combination.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A process and an apparatus by which it is performed are distinct things. They may be found in one patent. They may be made the subject of different patents.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““if we should yield to this invocation and attempt a final decision, it would he difficult to say whether it would be more unjust to petitioner or to respondent.””
    2 later decisions 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.