Dann v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 304 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Diamond v. Diehr (1981), Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. (1976)
115 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 state decisions
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. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 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. · Dann v. Johnston · McClain v. Ortmayer · Gottschalk v. Benson
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 304 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), 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. (emphasis added) 34 As written, and as interpreted in cases dealing with utility patents, the statutory non-obviousness requirement focuses not on some hypothetical”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)he mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness. The gap between the prior art and (the invention must be sufficiently) great as to render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““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. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.””
3 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.