Egbert v. Lippmann’s Empirical Analysis
104 U.S. 333 · 1881
Citation profile
118 federal appellate · 62 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 390 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp. (1928), Smith Griggs Manuf'G Co v. Sprague (1887)
118 federal appellate · 62 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 Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright · William McClurg v. Lawrence Kingsland · Joseph Shaw v. Joseph Cooper
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 390 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If an inventor, having made his device, gives or sells it to another, to be used by the donee or vendee, without limitation or restriction, or injunction of secrecy, and it is so used, such use is public, even though the use and knowledge of the use may be confined to one person.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“limitation or restriction, or injunction of secrecy.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The use of an invention by the inventor himself, or of any other person under his direction, by way of experiment, and in order to bring the invention to perfection, has never been regarded as such a use. * * * * * * * * * “ * * * He may have it put up and used in the premises of another, and the use may inure to the benefit of the owner of the establishment. Still, if used under the surveillance of the inventor, and for the purpose of enabling him to test the machine, and ascertain whether it will answer the purpose intended, and make such alterations and improvements as experience demonstrates to be necessary, it will still be a mere experimental use, and not a public use, within the meaning of the statute. “Whilst the supposed machine is in such experimental use, the public may be incidentally deriving a benefit from it. If it be a grist-mill, or a carding-machine, customers from the surrounding country may enjoy the use of it by having their grain made into flour, or their wool into rolls, and still it will not be in public use, within the meaning of the law.””
4 later decisions 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.