Mercoid Corporation v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co’s Empirical Analysis
320 U.S. 680 · 1944
Citation profile
163 federal appellate · 42 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 353 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell (1947), International Salt Co. v. United States (1947)
163 federal appellate · 42 district ·
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
Relies on Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis · Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment 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 353 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] patent on a combination is a patent on the assembled or functioning whole, not on the separate parts.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A composition for the treatment of poultry comprising an aqueous solution containing 3-nitro-4-hydroxy phenyl arsenic acid in the approximate concentration range of 0.00005% to 0.035%. 5 Claim 16 is typical of the second group. It reads: "A composition for the control of coccidiosis in poultry comprising an aqueous solution containing 3-nitro-4-hydroxy phenyl arsenic acid in the approximate range of 0.0079% to 0.035%. 6 In their briefs the parties refer to the chemical used as 3-nitro. Eliminating technical terms, claim 4 means a solution of 3-nitro in water within the concentration range stated, and claim 16 means a solution of 3-nitro in water within the range stated in the claim. The patent is for a composition of two unpatented substances, water and 3-nitro. 7 Neither of the parties manufacture and sell the patented composition; "* * * that is to say, they do not practice the invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“respondent may not obtain from a court of equity any decree which directly or indirectly helps it to subvert the public policy which underlies the grant of its patent”
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.