Sontag Chain Stores Co Limited v. National Nut Co of California’s Empirical Analysis
310 U.S. 281 · 1940
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950), Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1964)
70 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 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
reviewedNational Nut Co. of California v. Sontag Chain Stores Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Topliff v. Topliff · Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. · White v. Dunbar · Mahn v. Harwood · Miller v. Brass 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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the case under consideration the patentee might have included in the application for the original patent, claims broad enough to embrace petitioner’s accused machine, but did not. This ‘gave the public to understand’ that whatever was not claimed ‘did not come within 'his patent and might rightfully be made by anyone.’ The enlarged claims were presented with knowledge of the accused machine and definite purpose to include it. “Recapture within two years of what a patentee- dedicates to the public through omission is permissible under specified conditions, but not, we think, 'at the expense of innocent parties.1 Otherwise, the door is open for gross injustice to alert inventors and baffling uncertainty will hinder orderly development of useful arts. “The District Court properly ruled that ■petitioner had ‘acquired intervening rights which in equity plaintiff * * * might not now disturb.’ ” [Emphasis supplied.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a reissue with enlarged claims, not applied for within the two years after the original, is void in the absence of extraordinary exculpating circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Application of Hayes“constructive notice of [its] existence goes thus to all the world”
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.