Etherington v. Hardee’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.2d 28 · 1961
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2007
6 federal appellate · 1 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 Waterman v. Mackenzie · Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. · Gayler v. Wilder · Pope Manuf'G Co v. Gormully Jeffery Manuf'G Co · E. W. Bliss Co. 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Tt has long been settled that a licensee may not maintain a suit for infringement * * *; and that to entitle an assignee or grantee to maintain such a suit under warrant of Rev.Stats. § 4919 [ 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 281 , 284] such assignee or grantee must have an assignment, grant or conveyance, either of the whole patent, of an undivided part of it, or of an exclusive right under it “within and throughout a specified part of the United States.” Any assignment or transfer short of one of these is a mere license giving the licensee no interest in the patent sufficient to sue at law in his own name for infringement or in equity without joining the owner of the patent.’ * * * ” (Brackets in quoted material.)”
1 later decision 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.