Transparent-Wrap Mach Corporation v. Stokes & Smith Co’s Empirical Analysis
329 U.S. 637 · 1947
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 37 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 236 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969), United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (1956)
71 federal appellate · 37 district · 13 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
reviewedStokes & Smith Co. v. Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. United States · United States v. Masonite Corp.
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 236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the inclusion in the license of the condition requiring the licensee to assign improvement patents is not per se illegal and unenforceable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every application for patent or patent or any interest therein shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing, and the applicant or patentee or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent or patent to the whole or any specified part of the United States. * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though control of the unpatented article or device falls short of a prohibited restraint of trade or monopoly, it will not be sanctioned.... For it is the tendency in that direction which condemns the practice and which, if approved by a court either through enjoining infringement or enforcing the covenant, would receive a powerful impetus.”
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.