Guthrie v. Curlett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• method of abbreviating rail tariff schedules, “if it be novel, is not the kind of art protected by the patent acts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bilski v. Kappos
  Supreme Court· 2010-06-28· cited 573×
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Ip Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-05-16· cited 20×
• In Re Reeves
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1932-12-27· cited 8×
• In Re Bolongaro
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1933-02-06· cited 5×
• Flint v. G. R. Leonard & Co.
  Seventh Circuit· 1928-07-06· cited 3×
• Myers v. Coe
  D.C. Circuit· 1936-03-30· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Underwood v. Gerber
  Supreme Court· 1893-05-01· cited 50×
• International Mausoleum Co. v. Sievert
  Sixth Circuit· 1914-03-03· cited 26×
• Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope
  Sixth Circuit· 1913-10-17· cited 24×
• Berardini v. Tocci
  U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1911-07-03· cited 5×
• Berardini v. Tocci
  Second Circuit· 1912-12-09· cited 4×
• Library Bureau v. Fred Macey Co.
  First Circuit· 1906-10-09· cited 2×