Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 F.2d 453 - Ekco Products Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.

Ekco Products Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

347 F.2d 453 · 1965

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
September 1985
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 1985

7 federal appellate ·

80196519701980decided

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 I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. · Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. · The Taylor-Reed Corporation v. Mennen Food Products, Inc., American Home Products Corporation, and Frederick C. Mennen · Ekco Products Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co. · Welsh Co. v. Chernivsky

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

  1. ““Furthermore, a patentee that has narrowed his claim after rejection to secure allowance, is held strictly to the letter of the limited claims granted to him; by his amendment he recognizes the difference between the old claims and the new, and proclaims ‘his abandonment of all that is embraced in that difference.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “had claimed its product broadly as a baking pan having a steel base, an overlying layer of iron-tin alloy, a further layer of metallic tin, and a surface layer of olive-green tin oxide. There had been no claim that called for any specific thickness of iron-tin alloy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “look(ed) no further than to learn whether the patentee was forced to introduce such element to avoid rejection.”
    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.