In re Koehring’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.2d 421 · 1930
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1996
2 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 Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co. · H. D. Smith & Co. v. Peck · R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Starkweather Co. · North British Rubber Co. v. Racine Rubber Tire Co. of New York, Inc. · Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not reasonable to presume that Congress, in basing a patent right upon the ornamentation or beauty of a tool or mechanical device, intended that such beauty and ornamentation should be limited to such as is found in paintings, sculpture, and artistic objects, and which excites the aesthetic sense of artists alone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In re Sung Nam Cho“Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.