Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.’s Empirical Analysis
314 U.S. 488 · 1942
Citation profile
419 federal appellate · 186 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,225 later decisions (90 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)
419 federal appellate · 186 district · 24 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
reviewedG. S. Suppiger Co. v. Morton Salt Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.
Cited together with Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis · Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. United States
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 1,225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The question we must decide is not necessarily whether respondent has violated the Clayton Act, but whether a court of equity will lend its aid to protect the patent monopoly when respondent is using it as the effective means of restraining competition with its sale of an unpatented article. “ * * * Where the patent is used as a means of restraining competition with the patentee’s sale of an unpatented product, the successful prosecution ■ of an infringement suit even against one who is not a competitor in such sale is a powerful aid to the maintenance of the attempted monopoly of the unpatented article, and is thus a contributing factor in thwarting the public policy underlying the grant of the patent. * * * Equity may rightly withhold its assistance from such a use of the patent, by declining to entertain a suit for infringement, and should do so at least until it is made to appear that the improper practice has been abandoned and that the consequences of the misuse of the patent have been dissipated. * * * ””
35 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is unnecessary to decide whether respondent has violated the Clayton Act, for we conclude that in any event the maintenance of the present suit to restrain petitioner’s manufacture or sale of the alleged infringing machines is contrary to public policy and that the district court rightly dismissed the complaint for want of equity”.”
2 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.