Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis
311 U.S. 211 · 1940
Citation profile
317 federal appellate · 94 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 760 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Phillips v. AWH Corp. (2005)
317 federal appellate · 94 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
reviewedCleveland Trust Co. v. Schriber-Schroth Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. · Smith v. Snow · I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber 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 760 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a rule of patent construction consistently observed that a claim in a patent as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference to claims that have been cancelled or rejected, and the claims allowed cannot by construction be read to cover what was thus eliminated from the patent.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But the particular invention to which the patentee has made claim in conformity to the statute is not always to be ascertained from an inspection of the specifications and claims of the patent alone. Where the patentee in the course of his application in the patent office has, by amendment, cancelled or surrendered claims, those which are allowed are to be read in the light of those abandoned and an abandoned claim cannot be revived and restored to the patent by reading it by construction into the claims which are allowed.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“claims of a patent are * * * to be read or interpreted in the light of its specifications.”
3 later decisions 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.