Lear, Inc. v. Adkins’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
496 federal appellate · 151 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,447 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc. (1992)
496 federal appellate · 151 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 17 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 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 35 U.S.C. § 122
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.
Cited together with Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, 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 1,447 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain.”
67 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas which do not merit patent protection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of any Act of Congress' or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Commissioner.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.