Kohus v. Mariol’s Empirical Analysis
328 F.3d 848 · 2003
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2004), Stromback v. New Line Cinema (2004)
21 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 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Mazer v. Stein · Arnstein v. Porter · Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants · Gay v. Parpart
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of- his “ideas,” to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he first step requires identifying which aspects of the artist's work, if any, are protectible by copyright; the second involves determining whether the allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to protectible elements of the artist's work. We approve this method and adopt it. The essence of the first step is to filter out the unoriginal, unprotectible elements-elements that were not independently created by the inventor, and that possess no minimal degree of creativity-through a variety of analyses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Therefore,] the first step ‘requires identifying which aspects of the [plaintiffl’s work, if any, are protectible by copyright. ... The essence of the first step is to filter out the unoriginal, unproteeti-ble elements — elements that were not independently created by the inventor, and that possess no minimal degree of creativity, through a variety of analy-ses....”
3 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.