Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 806 · 1945
Citation profile
500 federal appellate · 392 district · 169 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,252 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
500 federal appellate · 392 district · 169 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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
reviewedAutomotive Maintenance Mach. Co. v. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.
Cited together with Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
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 2,252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.”
81 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. As recognized by the Constitution, it is a special privilege designed to serve the public purpose of promoting the “Progress of Science and useful Arts.” At the same time, a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies and to the right to access to a free and open market. The far-reaching social and economic consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct and that such monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope.”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * We need not speculate as to whether there was sufficient proof to present the matter to the District Attorney. But it is clear that Automotive knew and suppressed facts that, at the very least, should have been brought in some way to the attention of the Patent Office, especially when it became evident that the interference proceedings would continue no longer. Those who have applications pending with the Patent Office or who are parties to Patent Office proceedings have an uncompromising duty to report to it all facts concerning possible fraud or inequitableness underlying the applications in issue. Cf. Crites, Inc., v. Prudential Ins. Co., 322 U.S. 408 , 415, 64 S.Ct. 1075 , 1079, 88 L.Ed. 1356 . This duty is not excused by reasonable doubts as' to the sufficiency of the proof of the inequitablé conduct nor by resort to independent legal advice. Public interest demands that all facts relevant to such matters be submitted formally or informally to the Patent Office, which can then pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Only in this way can that agency act to safeguard the public in the first instance against fraudulent patent monopolies. Only in that way can the Patent Office and the public escape from being classed among the ‘mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.’ Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra [322 U.S. [238], 246, 64 S.Ct. [997], 1001, 88 L.Ed. 1250 .]””
14 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.