Parker v. Automatic Mach. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
227 F. 449 · 1915
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1966
3 federal appellate ·
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 Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy · Bundy Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Time-Register Co. · Standard Caster & Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co. · Lourie Implement Co. v. Lenhart · Pedersen v. Dundon
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Infringement is not avoided by mere change of form, or renewals of parts, or reductions of dimensions, or the substitution of mechanical equivalents, or the studious avoidance of the literal definition of specifications and claims, or the superadding of some improvement. . The court will look through the disguises, however ingenious, to see whether the inventive idea of the original patentee has been appropriated, and whether the defendants’ device contains the material features of the patent in suit, and will declare infringement even when those features have been supplemented and modified to such an extent that the defendant may be entitled to a patent for the improvement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Frick Co. v. Lindsay
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.