Cooling Systems and Flexibles Inc v. Stuart Radiator Inc’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1994), Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty (1996)
4 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Jizmejian v. United States · Mazer v. Stein · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cooling Systems relies heavily on Lands-berg 's refusal to decide the issue of ‘whether a work that rephrased in the same order as the original a substantial part of the ideas in another work might be held to infringe that work as a compilation ... even though none of the re-phrasings of the individual ideas would constitute infringement when viewed in isolation.’ Landsberg [v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc.], 736 F.2d [485] at 489 [(9th Cir.1984)]. It claims that the alleged infringement falls precisely within the grey area that Landsberg refused to decide.... This contention must fail. Landsberg’s principle — that the fewer the methods of expressing an idea, the more the allegedly infringing work must resemble the copyrighted work in order to establish substantial similarity — must govern. Here the range of possible expressions is extremely narrow; it embraces only variations on a catalog arrangement. See also Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1168 (‘the scope of copyright expression increases with the extent expression differs from the idea’); cf. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1971) (discussing the ‘unity of idea and expression’ end of the idea-expression continuum).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration ... shall be within the discretion of the court.”
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.