Westinghouse Electric Mfg Co v. Formica Insulation Co’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 342 · 1924
Citation profile
181 federal appellate · 68 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 440 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
181 federal appellate · 68 district · 15 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Littlefield v. Perry · United States v. Shea · Agawam Company v. Jordan
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 440 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n assignor of a patent right is estopped to attack the utility, novelty or validity of a patented invention which he has assigned or granted as against any one claiming the right under his assignment or grant.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But this estoppel, for manifest reasons, does not prevent him from denying infringement. To determine such an issue, it is admissible to show the state of the art involved, that the court may see what the thing was which was assigned [licensed], and thus determine the primary or -secondary character of the patent assigned, and the extent to which the doctrine of equivalents may be invoked against an infringer. The court will not assume against an assignor, and in favor of his assignee, anything more than that the invention presented a sufficient degree of utility and novelty to justify the issuance of the patent assigned, and will apply to the patent the same rule of construction, with this limitation, which would be applicable between the patentee and a stranger.” We proceed to a consideration of the scope of the patents. In Cohen No. 1,-944,922, Claim 2 is as follows: “A heating element for cigar-lighters comprising a spiral coil of high resistance wire; a pin to which the inner end of the wire is secured; a mica plate having a hole adapted to snugly fit said pin, the spiral coil being supported on said mica plate; a supporting plate having a passage for the pin substantially larger than the diameter of the pin and having a dished portion adapted to snugly fit said mica plate; and means for holding the mica plate in said dished portion to space the pin from the edge of said passage in the supporting plate to electrically insulate the pin from said supporting plate.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the assignment is made before patent, the claims are subject to change by curtailment or enlargement by the PTO with the acquiescence of or at the instance of the assignee, and the extent of the claims to be allowed may ultimately include more than the assignor intended to claim. This difference might justify the view that the range or relevant and competent evidence in fixing the limits of the subsequent estoppel should be more liberal than in the case of an assignment of a granted patent.”
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.