Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 20 - Waxham v. Smith

Waxham v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 20 · 1935

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
November 1972
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1972 · most notably Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), Smith v. Snow (1935)

34 federal appellate · 9 district ·

35019351940195019601970decided

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

reviewedWaxham v. Smith (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Smith v. Snow · Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford · Winans v. Adam Edward and Talbot Denmead · Cochrane v. Deener

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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * By the use of materials in a particular manner he secured the performance of the function by a means which had never occurred in nature, and had not been anticipated by the prior art; this is a patentable method or process. * * * [Emphasis added.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “But the function which a machine performs, here the hatching of eggs, is to be distinguished from the means by which that performance is secured * * *. A method, which may be patented irrespective of the particular form of the mechanism which may be availed of for carrying it into operation, is not to be rejected as “functional”, merely because the specifications show a machine capable of using it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Petitioner does not avoid infringement of respondent’s method patent merely by employing it in a machine of different structure -than respondent’s, whether more or less efficiently.””
    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.