Grinnell Washing Mach Co v. E E Johnson Co’s Empirical Analysis
247 U.S. 426 · 1918
Citation profile
212 federal appellate · 87 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 435 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1989 · most notably Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935), Powers-Kenedy Contracting Corporation v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co (1930)
212 federal appellate · 87 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedE. E. Johnson Co. v. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Reckendorfer v. Faber · Hailes v. Van Wormer · Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. · Phillips v. Detroit
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 435 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Applying the rule thus authoritatively settled by this court, we think no invention is shown in assembling these old elements for the purposes declared. No new function is ‘evolved from this combination’; the new result, so far as one is achieved, is only that which arises from the well-known operation of each one of the elements. “ * * * So in this instance we think the combination accomplished by Phillips fails to show that exercise of invention, producing a novel and useful result from the co-operating action of the elements, which is essential to distinguish patentable combination from an aggregation of old elements so placed by mechanical skill as to do work more rapidly and economically.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It must be conceded that a new combination, if it produces new. and useful results, is patentable, though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made. But the results must be a product of the combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results each the complete product of one of the combined elements.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Generally speaking, a combination of old elements, in order to be patentable, must produce by their joint action a novel and useful result, or an old result in a more advantageous way.””
3 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.