International Business Machines Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 131 · 1936
Citation profile
134 federal appellate · 33 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 395 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States (1958)
134 federal appellate · 33 district · 15 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.
Relationships
Relies on Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. United States · Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation · Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.
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 395 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be to substantially lessen competition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * The only purpose or effect of the tying clause, so far as it could be effectively applied to patented articles, is either to prevent the use, by a lessee, of the product of a competitor of the lessor, where the lessor’s patent, prima facie, embraces that product, and thus avoid judicial review of the patent, or else to compel its examination in every suit brought to set aside the tying clause, although the suit could usually result in no binding adjudication as to the validity of the patent, since infringement would not be in issue. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the condition is not in so many words against the use of the cards of a competitor, but is affirmative in form, that the lessee shall use only appellant’s cards in the leased machines,”
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.