Union Metallio Cartridge Co v. United States Cartridge Co’s Empirical Analysis
112 U.S. 624 · 1884
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2000 · most notably Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935), Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. (1894)
29 federal appellate · 10 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 Leggett v. Avery · Carroll v. Alston
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The disclaimer was one of the fact of invention. It could not lawfully be anything but a disclaimer of the fact either of original invention or of first invention. It was not merely the expunging oí a descriptive part of the specification, * * * but it was a disclaimer of all claims based on such descriptive part,” etc.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Graham v. Earl · Graham v. Earl““It is obvious, on inspection, that these claims are for substantially the same inventions which were disclaimed before the extension, and are for different inventions from that which was included in and secured by the letters patent as extended. The court below deemed this, among other things, a fatal objection to the validity of the reissued letters patent. We agree with the circuit court. We think it was a manifest error of the commissioner, in the reissue, to allow to the patentee a claim for an invention different from that which was described in the surrendered letters, and which he had thus expressly disclaimed. The pretense that an ‘ error had arisen by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,’ within the meaning of the patent law, was too bald for consideration. Tire very question of the validity of these claims had just been considered and decided, with the acquiescence and the express disclaimer of the patentee. If, in any case, where an applicant for letters patent, in order to obtain the issue thereof, disclaims a particular invention or acquiesces in the rejection of a claim thereto, a reissue containing such claim is valid, (which we greatly doubt,J it certainly cannot be sustained in this case. The allowance of claims once formally abandoned by the applicant, in order to get his letters patent through, is the occasion of immense frauds against the public. It not unfrequently happens that, after an application has been carefully examined and compared with previous i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dobson v. Lees
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.