Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company’s Empirical Analysis
213 U.S. 325 · 1909
Citation profile
168 federal appellate · 75 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 355 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co (1944), Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
168 federal appellate · 75 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLeeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company · Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. · Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H
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 355 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A combination is a composition of elements, some of which may be old and others new, or all old or all new. It is, however, the combination that is the invention, and is as much a unit in contemplation of law as a single or noncomposite instrument. Whoever uses it without permission is an infringer of it. Whoever contributes to such use is an infringer of it. It may be well here to get rid of a misleading consideration. It can make no difference as to the infringement or noninfringement of a combination that one of its elements or all of its elements are unpatented.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'to preserve its fitness for use so far as it may be affected by wear or breakage.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court, however, stated that there were cases to the effect that the sale of one element of a combination with intention that it should be used with another was an infringement, but decided that they had no application to one where the element made by the alleged infringer was ‘an article of manufacture, perishable in its nature, which it is the object of the mechanism to deliver, and must be renewed periodically whenever the device is put to use.’ The ease, therefore, is not a precedent for the decision of that at bar. Not one of the determining factors there stated exists in the case at bar. If the operative relation of the paper roll to the mechanism was as illustrated (and the court left no doubt that it was), that is, of the log to the saw in the mill, wheat to the rollers which grind it, pins which are produced by a patent machine ; in other words, in no more operative relation than a machine and its product are, the invalidity of the combination was hardly questionable. And, besides, it was made a determining circumstance that the paper- perished by its use, and a periodical renewal was indicated to be a renewal ‘whenever the device was put to use.’ ””
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.