Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 85 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 478 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc (1984), Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
91 federal appellate · 85 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLaitram Corp. v. Deepsouth Packing Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 283 · 35 U.S.C. § 284
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement 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 478 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] combination patent [asserted under § 271(a)] protects only against the operable assembly of the whole and not the manufacture of its parts.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“do not, and were not intended to, operate beyond the limits of the United States.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.