Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
320 U.S. 1 · 1943
Citation profile
219 federal appellate · 65 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 660 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
219 federal appellate · 65 district · 20 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Hormel v. Helvering · Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Loom Company v. Higgins · McClain v. Ortmayer
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 660 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The real question is how significant a jump is the new disclosure from the old knowledge. Reconstruction by hindsight, making obvious something that was not at all obvious to superior minds until someone pointed it out, — this is too often a tempting exercise for astute minds. The result is to remove the opportunity of obtaining what Congress has seen fit to make available.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although the interlocutory decision * * * on the question of validity and infringement was appealable, * * * the decision was not final until the conclusion of the accounting.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think that Stone’s original application sufficiently disclosed the desirability that the antenna circuits in transmitter and receiver be resonant to the same frequency as the closed circuits, as he expressly recommended in his patent. But in any event it is plain that no departure from or improper addition to the specifications was involved in the 1902 amendments, which merely made explicit what was already implicit. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U.S. 383 , 395-397, 21 S.Ct. 409 , 414, 415, 45 L.Ed. 586 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Chaplin · In re Chaplin
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.