Brulotte v. Thys Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
136 federal appellate · 70 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 424 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)
136 federal appellate · 70 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 154
Relies on Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G 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 424 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A patent empowers the owner to exact royalties as high as he can negotiate with the leverage of that monopoly. But to use that leverage to project those royalty payments beyond the life of the patent is analogous to an effort to enlarge the monopoly of the patent by tieing the sale or use of the patented article to the purchase or use of unpatented ones. See Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 , 60 S.Ct. 618, 84 L.Ed. 852; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co., 320 U.S. 661 , 664-665, 64 S.Ct. 268, 88 L.Ed. 376, and cases cited.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny attempted reservation or continuation in the patentee or those claiming under him of the patent monopoly, after the patent expires, whatever the legal device employed, runs counter to the policy and purposes of the patent laws. . . .”
5 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.