Gage v. Herring’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Considering that the question of the validity of the new claim in the reissue is a question of law upon the face of the patent, and that its validity has been sanctioned by the Commissioner of Patents in granting the reissue and upheld by the Circuit Court, there has been no unreasonable delay in entering a disclaimer; for the plaintiffs wore not bound to disclaim until after a judgment of this court on the question.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rawson & Morrison Mfg. Co. v. C. W. Hunt Co. · Page Mach. Co. v. Dow

2. “inoperative, or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient description or specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming in his specification as his own invention, more than he had or shall have a right to claim as new.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eby v. King · Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd Smc Corporation Smc Pneumatics Inc

3. ““Tbe invalidity of the new claim in the reissue does not, indeed, impair the validity of the original claim, which is repeated and separately stated in the reissued patent. Under the provisions of the patent act, whenever through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any willful default or intent to defraud ox mislead tlie public, a patentee in his specification has claimed more than that of which lie was tlie original and first inventor or discoverer, his patent is valid for all that part which is truly and justly his own, provided the same is a material and substantial'part of the thing patented, and definitely distinguishable from the parts claimed without right; and the patentee, upon seasonably recording in the Patent Oílice a disclaimer in writing of the parts which he did not invent, or to which he has no valid claim, may maintain a suit upon that part which he is entitled to hold, although in a suit brought before the disclaimer he cannot recover costs. * * * The plaintiffs, upon filing a disclaimer of the new one, are entitled to a decree, without costs, for the infringement of the old and valid claim.” 107 U. S. 646 , 2 Sup. Ct 824 , 27 L. Ed. 601 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Suddard v. American Motor Co.