Fairchild v. Poe’s Empirical Analysis
259 F.2d 329 · 1958
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 1986 · most notably Hobbs v. United States (1971), Trans-World Manufacturing Corp. v. Al Nyman & Sons, Inc. (1984)
28 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. · Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp. · Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Admiral Corp.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essence of patent anticipation cases lies in the fact that the inventive thought in both the anticipating and patented devices in the same, not merely that one process might possibly perform another function. Walker on Patents, Section 51, p. 274. ‘Where a patent includes a combination of elements, it is not necessary to establish anticipation that all of the elements be found in a single earlier patent or in a single device previously in general use. It is enough if the evidence, taken as a whole, discloses that all of the claimed elements are found in different prior patents in the art or in different devices previously in general use, and no new functional relationship arises from their combination.’ Lyman Gun Sight Corp. v. Redfield Gun Sight Corp., 10 Cir., 1936, 87 F.2d 26, 28 .” Fairchild v. Poe, 259 F.2d 329, at p. 332 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plaintiff seeks to combat this defense by a showing of the commercial success of the patent. We do not doubt its success or acceptance in the art. Mere commercial success, however, will not create patent-ability.” (See p. 332)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“proof of the said matters may not be made at the trial except on such terms as the court requires.”
1 later decision 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.