Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Shelby Poultry Co.’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.2d 127 · 1961
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 1983 · most notably Lorenz v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (1962), Jones Knitting Corp. v. Morgan (1966)
24 federal appellate ·
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 Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Reiner v. I. Leon Co. · Hunt v. Armour & Co. · S. H. Kress & Company v. Elie P. Aghnides and Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. · Manville Boiler Co. v. Columbia Boiler Co. of Pottstown, Inc.
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.
““A patent may not be obtained * * if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 220 F. Supp. 594 - Fulfoam Corp. v. Kroehler Manufacturing Co. of North Carolina, Inc. · Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
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.