Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

113 federal appellate · 47 district · 30 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 376 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Further provision, covering such and also all other cases in which an application for a patent has been refused, either by the commissioner of patents or by the supreme court of the district, is found in Revised Statutes, § 4915. It is thereby provided that the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity. This means a proceeding in a court of the United States having original equity jurisdiction under the patent laws, according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure. It is not a technical appeal from the patent-office, like that authorized in section 4911, confined to the case as made in the record of that office, but is prepared and heard upon all competent evidence adduced, and upon the whole merits. Such has been the uniform and correct practice in the circuit courts. Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. Rep. 117 ; Ex parte Squire, 3 Ban. & A. 133 ; Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. Rep. 321 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hien · American Steel Foundries v. Robertson

2. “‘Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. And such adjudication, if it- be in favor of the right of the applicant, shall authorize the commissioner to issue such patent on the applicant filing in the Patent Office a copy of the' adjudication, and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all eases where there is no opposing party, a copy of the bill shall be served on the commissioner; and all the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gandy v. Marble · In re Hien

3. “the Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Special Equipment Co. v. Coe