Siebring v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.2d 474 · 1965
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably 134 S. Ct. 1749 - Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (2014), Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian (1971)
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 United States v. Swift & Co. · System Federation No. 91 v. Wright · Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · Pope Manuf'G Co v. Gormully · Vedin v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“merely 'colorably' different from the enjoined device or from the patent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] consent judgment is a judicial act and `possesses the same force and character as a judgment rendered following a contested trial.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are told by appellant that in patent infringement cases attorney fees should be awarded only in extraordinary cases bottomed on a finding of unfairness or bad faith. And, of course, appellant insists that this is not such a case. To be sure, the law is clear that in an action for patent infringement attorney fees should not be allowed except in the extraordinary case. The statute so provides as do the cases cited and relied upon by appellant.... From the argument made by appellant and the authorities relied upon by him, it is apparent that he views this as an ordinary patent infringement action. This position is untenable. As we have tried to demonstrate, this is a civil contempt proceeding growing out of the continued infringement of the Hansen patent in the face of an injunction proscribing such infringement.”
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.