Paramount Publix Corporation v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
294 U.S. 464 · 1935
Citation profile
268 federal appellate · 78 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 501 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935), Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. (1944)
268 federal appellate · 78 district · 1 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 Tri-Ergon Corp. v. Paramount Publix Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Loom Company v. Higgins · McClain v. Ortmayer · Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. · Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford
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 501 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the method or device satisfied an old and recognized want, invention is to be inferred, rather than the exercise of mechanical skill. For mere skill of the art would normally have been called into action by the generally known want.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kelley v. Coe · In re Armstrong“* * * The application of an old process to a new and closely analogous subject matter, plainly indicated by tbe prior art as an appropriate subject of (lie process, is not invention. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Vetter · In re Grettie“However inconsistent this early attempt to procure a patent may be with petitioner's present contention of its invalidity for want of invention, this Court has long recognized that such inconsistency affords no basis for an estoppel, nor precludes the court from relieving the alleged infringer and the public from the asserted monopoly when there is no invention. Haughey v. Lee, 151 U.S. 282 , 285 [14 S.Ct. 331, 38 L.Ed. 162].”
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.