Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
239 federal appellate · 156 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 976 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971), General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (1983)
239 federal appellate · 156 district · 13 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedConvertible Top Replacement Co. v. Aro Manufacturing Co. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv 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 976 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the difference between his pecuniary condition after the infringement, and what his condition would have been if the infringement had not occurred.”
52 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“species of joint-tortfeasor, who is held liable because he has contributed with another to the causing of a single harm to the plaintiff”
10 later decisions 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.