Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 27 · 1931
Citation profile
235 federal appellate · 115 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 713 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
235 federal appellate · 115 district · 2 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
reviewedAmerican Patents Development Corp. v. Carbice Corp. of America (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · United States v. General Electric Co. · United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. United States
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 713 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The Dry Ice Corporation has no right to be free from competition in the sale of solid carbon dioxide. Control over the supply of such unpatented material is beyond the scope of the patentee’s monopoly; and this limitation, inherent in the patent grant, is not dependent upon the peculiar function or character of the unpatented material or on the way in which it is used. Relief is denied because the Dry Ice Corporation is attempting, without sanction of law, to employ the patent to secure a limited monopoly of unpatented material used in applying the invention. * * * ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The limited monopoly to make, use and vend an article may not be expanded by limitations as to materials and supplies necessary to the operation of it.... If a monopoly could be so expanded, the owner of a patent for a product might conceivably monopolize the commerce in a large part of unpatented materials used in its manufacture.... [The] courts deny relief against those who disregard the limitations sought to be imposed by the patentee beyond the legitimate scope of its monopoly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But it [the patentee] may not exact as the condition of a license that unpatented materials used in connection with the invention shall be purchased only from the licensor; and if it does so, relief against one who supplies such unpatented materials will be denied. The limited monopoly to make, use, and vend an article may not be `expanded by limitations as to materials and supplies necessary to the operation of it.'”
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.