Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 320 · 1945
Citation profile
180 federal appellate · 63 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 420 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Dickinson v. Zurko (1999), Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. (1949)
180 federal appellate · 63 district · 1 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
reviewedDow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · McClain v. Ortmayer · Paramount Publix Corporation v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation · Smith v. Nichols
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 420 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is elemental that the mere substitution of equivalents which do substantially the same thing in the same way, even though better results may be produced, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““He who is merely the first to utilize the existing fund of public knowledge for new and obvious purposes must be satisfied with whatever fame, personal satisfaction or commercial success he may be able to achieve. Patent monopolies, with all their significant economic and social consequences, are not reserved for those who contribute so insubstantially to that fund of public knowledge.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finally, petitioner claims that the Grebe-Sanford process has filled a long felt want and has been a commercial success. But these considerations are relevant only in a close case where all other proof leaves the question of invention in doubt. Smith v. Hall, 301 U.S. 216, 233 , 57 S.Ct. 711 , 81 L.Ed. 1049 ; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 428, 429 , 12 S.Ct. 76 , 35 L.Ed. 800 . Here the lack of invention is beyond doubt and cannot be outweighed by such factors.””
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.