Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

199 federal appellate · 47 district · 4 state decisions

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 446 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “substantial similarity in expressions ... depending on the response of the ordinary reasonable person.... [I]t does not depend on the type of external criteria and analysis which marks the extrinsic test.”

   24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Berkic v. Crichton · Cooling System & Flexibles v. Stuart Radiator, Inc.

2. ““Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, .as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about and at times might consist of only its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his ‘ideas,’ to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended.””

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. · Shaw v. Lindheim

3. “No amount of proof of access will suffice to show copying if there are no similarities. This is not to say, however, that where clear and convincing evidence of access is presented, the quantum of proof required to show substantial similarity may not be lower than when access is shown merely by a preponderance of the evidence. As Professor Nimmer has observed: “[C]lear and convincing evidence of access will not avoid the necessity of also proving substantial similarity since access without similarity cannot create an inference of copying. However this so-called ‘Inverse Ratio Rule’ ... would seem to have some limited validity. That is, since a very high degree of similarity is required in order to dispense with proof of access, it must logically follow that where proof of access is offered, the required degree of similarity may be somewhat less than would be necessary in the absence of such proof.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Shaw v. Lindheim · Shaw v. Lindheim