Ditto, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.2d 67 · 1964
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Hupp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation v. Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert, Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert v. American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Huppcorporation, a Virginia Corporation (1966), Nestier Corporation v. Menasha Corporation-Lewisystems Division (1984)
12 federal appellate · 5 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 Smith v. Hall · DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co. · Bone v. Commissioners · Parmelee Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zink · John Deere Company of Kansas City, a Corporation, and Deere & Company, a Corporation v. William T. Graham, and Graham Plow, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a trial court in a patent case has followed proper legal standards in determining the question of presence or absence of patentable invention, its finding upon that issue, if sustained by the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.” '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court upon disputed fact issues. The trial court had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses and viewing the pertinent experiments made before it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Fact-findings of the trial court in patent cases are to be tested by the clearly erroneous standard prescribed by Rule 52(a).””
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.