Cook Engineering & Electronics, Inc. v. Hickory Foundry & Machine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1982
4 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 35 U.S.C. § 284
Relies on Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · McClain v. Ortmayer
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is sometimes said that the more investigation by the Patent Office the stronger the presumption of validity. Gulf Smokeless Coal Co., et al. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele, et al., 35 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 1929). But logically this is a two-edged sword. Five rejections over a four year prosecution period may strengthen the presumption of validity or make suspect the final allowance. The latter inference finds some support in common sense— certainly as to any broad scope necessary for the patent to have any real value. [ 231 F.Supp. 271 at 273 ].”
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.