Harvey v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.2d 481 · 1963
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 1983 · most notably Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Co. (1964), Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co. (1974)
31 federal appellate · 1 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 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · McClain v. Ortmayer · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley · Nelson v. County of Los Angeles
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 101. “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” § 102. “The person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States * * *” § 103. “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that impalpable something which distinguishes invention from mere mechanical skill. * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The combination of old parts or elements, in order to constitute a patentable invention, must perform or produce a new and different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them; it is not sufficient that the combination be superior to what went before in producing a more convenient and more economical mechanism.”
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.