Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 605 · 1950
Citation profile
1,356 federal appellate · 821 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,955 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton (1960), Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)
1,356 federal appellate · 821 district · 33 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
reviewedLinde Air Products Co. v. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.
Cited together with Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company
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 4,955 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result”
273 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question which thus emerges is whether the substitution of the manganese which is not an alkaline earth metal for the magnesium which is, under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the technology and the prior art, is a change of such substance as to make the doctrine of equivalents inapplicable; or conversely, whether under the circumstances the change was so insubstantial that the trial court’s invocation of the doctrine of equivalents was-justified.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents to the findings of fact in this case.”
4 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.