Automated Building Components, Inc., a Florida Corporation v. Structomatic, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Structomatic, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Cross-Appellant v. Automated Building Components, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““The courts below concurred in finding that every element here claimed (except extension of the counter) was known to prior art. When, for the first time, those elements were put to work for the supermarket type of stores, although each performed the same mechanical function for them that it had been known to perform, they produced results more striking, perhaps, than in any previous utilization. To bring these devices together and apply them to save the time of customer and checker was a good idea, but scores of progressive ideas in business are not patentable, and we conclude on the findings below that this one was not.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 273 F. Supp. 779 - Leach v. Rockwood & Company