Aro Equipment Corp. v. Herring-Wissler Co.’s Empirical Analysis
84 F.2d 619 · 1936
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1966
9 federal appellate · 1 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 McClain v. Ortmayer · Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady · Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co. · Broughton & Wiggins Nav. Co. v. Hammond Lumber Co. · Tropic-Aire, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court, in the case of Tropic-Aire, Inc., v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. [8 Cir.], 44 F.(2d) 580 , has reviewed many of the cases and laid down certain principles in regard to invention and patents which are binding in this circuit. Among them are the following: “ 'New thoughts, merely involving working out of mechanical skill to produce result, are not patentable. “ ‘Patent must be creation of inventive faculty and imagination, with something more than is obvious to persons skilled in art “ ‘Mere novelty and utility is not invention and cannot be substitute therefor. “ ‘Ingenuity does not constitute invention.’ ””
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.