United States v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
540 federal appellate · 211 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,572 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), Phillips v. AWH Corp. (2005)
540 federal appellate · 211 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. · Seymour v. Osborne · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.
Cited together with Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. · Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.
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 1,572 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the invention.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“These long-accepted factors, when taken together, would, we believe, deter any investigation into such a combination as is used by Adams. This is not to say that one who merely finds new uses to old inventions by shutting his eyes to their prior disadvantages thereby discovers a patentable innovation. We do say, however, that known disadvantages in old devices which would naturally discourage the search for new inventions may be taken into account in determining obviousness. At 52, 86 S.Ct. at 714.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)n inoperable invention or one that fails to achieve its intended result does not negative novelty.”
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.