Computing Scale Co. v. Toledo Computing Scale Co.’s Empirical Analysis
279 F. 648 · 1921
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1990 · most notably Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co. (1923), Beatrice Foods Company v. New England Printing and Lithographing Company (1990)
24 federal appellate · 9 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 Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company No 6 Dowagiac Manufacturing Company · Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Company v. Wagner Electric & Manufacturing Company · Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co. · National Brake & Electric Co. v. Christensen · Tremaine v. Hitchcock & 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where an infringing invention is used in combination with noninfringing features, and each jointly, but unequally, contributes to the profits, as the infringed patent creates only a part of the profits, the patentee is entitled to recover only that part of the net gains, and must give evidence reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative, tending to support or apportion the profits between the infringing and noninfringing features, or show by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence that the entire value of the whole machine as a marketable article is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature. “The burden on a patentee of apportioning the commingled profits on an infringing article between the infringing and noninfringing elements is sustained by proof demonstrating that defendant has so inextricably commingled and confused the parts composing the article that the profits cannot be accurately or approximately apportioned.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“should be held to the duty of keeping separate and accurate records of all his infringing acts; and, on his failure to keep such records, the court, in measuring the damages on account of his trespasses, should resolve all doubts against him”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is a cardinal rule of patent law that, where a patent produces but a part of the profits, the plaintiff may recover only such part of the profits as the patent produces, and the defendant may have credit for the remainder.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.