Simplicity Manufacturing Co. v. Quick Mfg., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.2d 1012 · 1966
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. Adams · Williams Mfg Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Local 174 & Joint Council No. 28 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Selles
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Three necessary elements to sustain a patent are invention, novelty and utility. * * * It is here admitted the Kamlukin Patent is a combination patent of old and well known elements. Such a patent is strictly rather than liberally construed. * * * However, even though the elements of a combination are old and well known, if the combination is new and the result useful, it is patentable. [Citations omitted]. Simplicity Mfg. Co. v. Quick Mfg., Inc., 355 F.2d 1012 .”
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.