Luckett v. Delpark, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 496 · 1926
Citation profile
166 federal appellate · 28 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 410 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1939), T. B. Harms Company v. Edward Eliscu and Ross Jungnickel, Inc. (1964)
166 federal appellate · 28 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. · Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.
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 410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The result of these eases is, that a federal district court is held to have jurisdiction of a suit by a patentee for an injunction against infringement and for profits and damages, even though, in anticipation of a defense of a license or authority to use the patent, the complainant includes in his bill averments intended to defeat such a defense. If these averments do not defeat such defense, the patentee will lose his ease on the merits, but the court’s jurisdiction under the patent laws is not ousted. The error in Hartell v. Tilghman [ 99 U. S. 547 , 25 L. Ed. 357 ], supra, was in denying jurisdiction under the patent laws when the patentee based his action broadly on his patent and averment of infringement seeking injunction and damages. His averments intended to constitute a reply to the anticipated defense that the defendant was a licensee did not change the nature of his declared choice of a suit under the patent laws. This, under the principle now established by the later cases, and especially The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Company [ 228 U. S. 22 , 33 S. Ct. 410 , 57 L. Ed. 716 ] and Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Company [ 237 U. S. 479 , 35 S. Ct. 658 , 59 L. Ed. 1056 ] is clear. But the present qualification of the Hartell Case does not affect the principle laid down in Wilson v. Sandford [ 10 How. 99 , 13 L. Ed. 344 ], that where a patentee complainant makes his suit one for recovery of royalties under a contract of license or assignment, or for damages for a br”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a general rule that a suit by a patentee for royalties under a license or assignment granted by him, or for any remedy in respect of a contract permitting use of the patent, is not a suit under the patent laws of the United States....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rotardier v. Entertainment Co. Music Group · Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation William A. McCall Jr. Ethel B. McCall and James B. McCall Geraldine McCall Silva Deborah McCall Aleto, Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation James B. McCall Geraldine McCall Silva Deborah McCall Aleto, William A. McCall Jr. Ethel B. McCall Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation James B. McCall Deborah McCall Aleto, Geraldine McCall Silva“`the party who brings suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon' ... [and] that `[j]urisdiction generally depends upon the case made and the relief demanded by the plaintiff.'”
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.