In re Marden’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.2d 958 · 1931
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. (1958), In re Merz (1938)
15 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co. · In re Marden
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If appellants have invented a new and useful process for producing pure vanadium, they are entitled to their patent monopoly of that process. But pure vanadium is not new in the inventive sense, and, it being a product of nature, no one is entitled to a monopoly of the same. * * * •» * * “Vanadium in composition with other metals has been known to exist by metallurgists for more than a century, having been discovered by Del Rio in 1801 in vanadinite. * * “The quality of purity of vanadium or its ductility is a quality of a natural product and as such is not patentable.” Citing General Elec. Co. v. DeForest Radio Co., supra. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.