Ag Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.2d 167 · 1973
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. (1976), Professional Golfers Ass'n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. (1975)
24 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. Adams · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. · 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)lthough the (Patent Holder's) flush system does not embrace a complicated technical improvement, it does achieve a synergistic result through a novel combination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not constitute invention, is not patentable, and is not a valid patent, it being a combination patent, all of the elements of which are old in the dairy business, long prior to 1963, and the combination of them as described in the said patent being neither new nor meeting the test of non-obviousness.”
1 later decision 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.