← 360 F.2d 977 - American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Hupp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation v. Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert, Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert v. American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Huppcorporation, a Virginia Corporation

American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Hupp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation v. Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert, Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert v. American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Huppcorporation, a Virginia Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

360 F.2d 977 · 1966

Citation profile

105

cited by 105 later decisions

February 2016

most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Amphenol Corporation, a Corporation of Delaware v. General Time Corporation, a Corporation of Delaware (1968), The Bendix Corporation v. Balax, Inc. (1970)

64 federal appellate · 10 district ·

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 Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. · Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons

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

“[i]nvention will not be decided on the narrow issue of degree.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Airlite Plastics Co. v. Plastilite Corp. · Wood Conversion Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co.
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.
“[P]roof of an isolated violation of substantive law will not entitle defendants to an affirmative recovery. Before a party is entitled to recover treble damages he must be able to plead and prove actual monetary injury to his business or property resulting from the illegal act. . . . It has long been the law that damages which are purely speculative, remote, or based upon conjecture cannot serve as a base for antitrust recovery. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Agrashell, Inc. v. Hammons Products Co.

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.