Parks v. Booth’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 96 · 1880
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 28 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Tilghman v. Proctor (1888), Root v. Railway Co. (1881)
70 federal appellate · 28 district · 3 state decisions
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 Bates v. Coe · Horace Silsby Washburn Race Abel Downs Henry Henion and Edward Mynderse v. Elisha Foote
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the thing patented is an entirety, consisting of a separate device <5r of a single combination of old elements incapable of division or separate use, the respondent cannot make good the defence in question by proving that a part of the entire invention is found in one prior patent, printed publication, or machine,, and another part in another, and so on indefinitely, and from the whole or any given number expect the court to determine the issue of novelty adversely to the complainant. ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Modern inventions very often consist merely of a new combination of old elements or devices, where nothing is or can be claimed except the new combination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Common justice forbids such a defence, as it would work a virtual repeal of so much of the Patent Act as gives to inventors the right to a patent consisting of old elements, where the combination itself is new and produces a new and useful result. New elements in such a patent are not required, and if such a defence were allowed, not one patent of the kind in a thousand of modern date could be held valid. Nor is such a defence consistent with the regulations enacted by Congress in respect to the procedure in litigations in respect to patent-rights.”
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.