Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 396 U.S. 57 - Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.

Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

865
cited by 865 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

426 federal appellate · 75 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 865 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. (1976)

426 federal appellate · 75 district · 4 state decisions

6760196919701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Julia Hotchkiss Executrix of John Hotchkiss Deceased John Davenport and John Quincy v. Miles Greenwood

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 865 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “without invention will not make patentability.”
    38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
    15 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.