Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 FSUPP 486 - Harman v. Scott

Harman v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
April 1984
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1984

6 federal appellate ·

701950196019701980decided

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. § 33

Relies on Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Temco Electric Motor Co v. Apco Mfg Co · Parks v. Booth · Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele. · Carlton v. Bokee

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

  1. ““The fact (if it be a fact) that various elements of the patented invention may be found in. the prior art does not itself render the patent invalid. Frey v. Marvel Auto Supply Co., 6 Cir., 236 F. 916 . “Where, as in the patent in suit, there is a novel combination which produces a new and useful result a patent is not anticipated by piecemeal selection of the component parts of the combination from a number prior art patents which themselves did not solve the problem. Parks v. Booth, 102 U.S. 96, 104 , 26 L.Ed. 54 . Metropolitan Device Corp. v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 6 Cir., 36 F.2d 477, 479 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Court is of the opinion and so finds that the defendant’s accused device (or devices) does the same work in substantially the same way and accomplishes substantially the same result as the device or “Fastening” of the patent in suit and that therefore, it (or they) does infringe Claims 1 and 2 here in issue, of Patent No. 2,142,896.”
    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.