380 F. Supp. 1120 - Cali v. Japan Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2004
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 272
Relies on Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company · Norman v. Baltimore & or · Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. · John Brown v. _____ Duchesne
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a[n] [aircraft], manufactured in France and powered with such an engine, delivered here for use by an airline in this country for domestic traffic, even though manufactured and sold in France, and a foreign aircraft arriving here on an international flight only to unload, turn about, reload and depart.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he particular airlines involved, given the magnitude of their carrier operations between foreign countries and this country, are such that the airlines are comparable to American airlines in the extent of their use of the article of Cali’s patent, and that, in consequence, the subtraction from the grant to Cali of the right to exclude others from the use of his patent is a .very great subtraction and one hardly tolerable under the statutory and treaty language, which might be thought to deal only with relatively unimportant (“Temporary” and “accidental”) invasions of the patent right that are without commercial significance. That subtraction, although large, appears nevertheless plainly to be what the statutory and treaty immunities intend .... 11”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any country of the Union the following shall not be considered as infringements of the rights of a patentee: 2. the use of devices forming the subject of the patent in the construction or operation of aircraft or land vehicles of other countries of the Union, or of accessories of such aircraft or land vehicles, when those aircraft of land vehicles temporarily or accidentally enter the said country. 8”
1 later decision 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.