General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
304 U.S. 364 · 1938
Citation profile
359 federal appellate · 139 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,034 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996), Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
359 federal appellate · 139 district · 6 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
reviewedGeneral Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · United States v. General Electric Co. · Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.
Cited together with United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co. · Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
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 1,034 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A limited use of terms of effect or result, which accurately define the essential qualities of a product to one skilled in the art, may in some instances be permissible and even desirable, but a characteristic essential to novelty may not be distinguished from the old art solely by its tendency to remedy the problems in the art met by the patent.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Fisher · In re Fuetterer
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.