United States v. General Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
272 U.S. 476 · 1926
Citation profile
263 federal appellate · 87 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 778 later decisions (90 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated (1977)
263 federal appellate · 87 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Waterman v. Mackenzie · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Gayler v. Wilder
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 778 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he patentee may grant a license 'upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The owner of a patent may assign it to another and convey, (1) the exclusive right to make, use and vend the invention throughout the United States, or, (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive right, or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and through a specific part of the United States. But any assignment or transfer short of one of these is a license, giving the licensee no title in the patent and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The owner of an article, patented or otherwise, is not violating the common law, or the Anti-Trust law, by seeking to dispose of his article directly to the consumer and fixing the price by which his agents transfer the title from him directly to such consumer.” 272 U.S. at 488 , 47 S.Ct. at 196 .”
4 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.