Jockmus v. Leviton’s Empirical Analysis
28 F.2d 812 · 1928
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably Garrett Corp. v. United States (1970), Deep Welding, Inc. v. Sciaky Bros. (1969)
11 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Imperial Glass Co. v. Heisey · Keene v. New Idea Spreader Co. · Huebner-Toledo Breweries Co. v. Mathews Gravity Carrier Co. · New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch · Britton v. White Manuf'g 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * We are content to follow the ruling in Imperial Glass Co. v. Heisey, 294 F. 267 (C.C.A. 6), that a catalogue distributed generally to a trade is a publication within Revised Statutes § 4886, 35 U.S.C.A. § 31 . It may indeed be that such a document was not a ‘public work’ under the act of 1836 ( 5 Stat. 117 ), and that Parsons v. Colgate (C.C.) 15 F. 600 , was rightly decided, though the brief comment in the opinion does not make the distinction. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed.Cas. 466, No. 11,660, only threw out a doubt, and went off on another point. While it was laid down without discussion in New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch (C.C.) 21 F. 580, 587 , that circulars were not publications, it was unnecessary to the decision and certainly was not its chief reliance. Britton v. White Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 61 F. 93 , was decided without discussion, and on the authority of the three cases, just cited, which support it only so far as we have said. The aggregate of these authorities is not so imposing as to cause us any hesitation in following the Sixth Circuit. On principle we are entirely in accord, for the purpose of the statute is apparent, and we ought to effect it so far as its language will allow. While it is true that the phrase, ‘printed publication,’ presupposes enough currency to make the work part of the possessions of the art, it demands no more. A single copy in a library, though more permanent, is far less fitted to inform the craft than a catalogue freely”
4 later decisions 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.