Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Adkins’s Empirical Analysis
330 F.2d 595 · 1964
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Arizona v. Ideal Basic Industries (1982), Broadview Chemical Corp. v. Loctite Corp. (1969)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Long before the enactment of the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act the Supreme Court had established two correlative rules relating to jurisdiction in patent matters. The first is that a case is within the exclusive federal jurisdiction when it seeks to enforce a patent against an infringer, even though the complaint may show, in anticipation of a defense, the existence of an agreement between the parties relating to the patent. The second is that if the suit is to enforce or to revoke a patent licensing or other similar agreement, it “is not a suit under the patent laws of the United States, and cannot be maintained in a federal court as such.” (citations omitted) 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights and trade-marks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent and copyright cases.”
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.