Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 827 · 1950
Citation profile
419 federal appellate · 129 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 999 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969), Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens (2000)
419 federal appellate · 129 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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
reviewedAutomatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv 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 999 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]pposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Sound business judgment could indicate that such payment represents the most convenient method of fixing the business value of the privileges granted by the licensing agreement. . . . Petitioner cannot complain because it must pay royalties whether it uses Hazeltine patents or not. What it acquired by the agreement into which it entered was the privilege to use any or all of the patents and developments as it desired to use them.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, it is contended that notwithstanding the licensing agreement, petitioner-licensee may contest the validity of the patents it is charged with using. The general rule is that the licensee under a patent license agreement may not challenge the validity of the licensed patent in a suit for royalties due under the contract. United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U.S. 310 , 25 S.Ct. 240, 49 L.Ed. 492. * * * The Katzinger and MacGregor cases are inapplicable. The general rule applies, and petitioner may not, in this suit, challenge the validity of the licensed patents.”
3 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.