Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 U.S. 127 - Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.’s Empirical Analysis

333 U.S. 127 · 1948

Citation profile

450
cited by 450 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
July 2019
most recently cited

153 federal appellate · 81 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 450 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Diamond v. Diehr (1981), Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)

153 federal appellate · 81 district ·

191019481950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedKalo Inoculant Co. v. Funk Bros. Seed Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 33

Relies on Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co. · DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co. · Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America

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 450 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “combination of species produce[d] ... no enlargement of the range of their utility.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There is no way in which we could call [the bacteria mixture a product of invention] unless we borrowed invention from the discovery of the natural principle itself”
    2 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.