Moore v. Shultz’s Empirical Analysis
491 F.2d 294 · 1974
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co (1992), Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. (1986)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. · United States v. Fenix & Scisson, Inc. · Scaramucci v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Do you find from clear and convincing evidence that the difference between the subject matter of the claim in issue of the patent in suit and the prior art are such that the subject matter thereof as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention thereof was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . This standard which we have said is to be applied to both judgments n.o.v. and to directed verdicts is that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (together with inferences which may be fairly drawn therefrom), and the verdict not directed nor the motion' granted unless the evidence points all one way, and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences which sustain the position of the party against whom the motion is directed. The motion must also be denied if the evidence and the inferences, so examined, are such that reasonable men may reach different conclusions . . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is universally held that a mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than previously performed or produced by them, is not a patentable invention. . . . The test of whether a particular patent is a mere aggregation and invalid or a combination and valid has been variously stated. Generally, where elements old in the art are united in such a way that a new and useful result is secured or an old result is attained in a more facile, economical and efficient manner, there is a patentable combination.””
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.