Hall v. Macneale’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

98 federal appellate · 24 district ·

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

1. ““The invention was complete in those safes. It was capable of producing the results sought to be accomplished, though not as thoroughly as with the use of welded steel and iron plates.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hentschel v. Carthage Sulphite Pulp Co. · 236 F. Supp. 914 - Dix-Seal Corporation v. New Haven Trap Rock Company

2. “It clearly appears, from the testimony of the appellant himself, that the idea of making a claim to the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent sued on arose from the introduction into safes, in 1866 or early in 1867, of plates of steel and iron welded together. This enabled the value of the screw-threaded conical bolt to be more fully developed because the screwthread could be made more effective the whole length of the bolt. But the whole invention existed in the bolt of the patent of 1860. There was no invention in adding to the solid conical bolt the screw-thread of the cored conical bolt. 23 "Moreover, the use and sale of the solid conical bolts in the Lafayette and Loraine County safes, even though those bolts had no screw-threads on them, constituted a use and sale of the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent in suit. The application for that patent was made in March, 1867, and the patent was granted under the provisions of the act of July 4, 1936, c. 357, and of the act of March 3, 1839, c. 88. Within the meaning of sections 7 and 15 of the act of 1836, as modified by section 7 of the act of 1839, the invention covered by claim 3 of the patent in suit was in use and on sale more than two years before the appellant applied for that patent, and such use and sale were, also, with the consent and allowance of the appellant, and the use was a public use.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frantz Manufacturing Co. v. Phenix Manufacturing Co.

3. “It was capable of producing the results sought to be accomplished, though not as thoroughly as with the use of welded steel and iron plates [a subsequent development in safes] . . . . [I]t is not shown that any attempt was made to see if the plates of the safes could be stripped off ... to prove whether or not the conical bolts were efficient. The safes were sold, and, apparently, no experiment and no experimental use were thought to be necessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Dybel