Wicke v. Ostrum’s Empirical Analysis
103 U.S. 461 · 1880
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. (1898), Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford (1909)
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A combination of * * * elements, not the equivalents of his, would be a different machine, and consequently not an infringement. •* * * By his patent he appropriated to himself only so much o£ the field of invention which his idea embraced as * * * the machine described in his specification and claimed in his application.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An inventor is entitled “to the benefit of all the mechanical equivalents of his several elements, known at the time of his invention, if used in the same combination.””
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.