Young v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In approaching the defense of prior use the rule of evidence applicable thereto should constantly be borne in mind. The defense must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason for the rule is obvious. It is so-easy to fabricate or color testimony which lies almost wholly in the control of the person producing it, the infirmities of the human memory are so great. and the liability to mistake so manifest, that the court is never justified in permitting such testimony to outweigh the presumption of validity which attaches to the patent, unless it be of such a character as to carry a clear conviction and remove every reasonable doubt. This court has frequently had ■occasion to consider this defense, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to repeat what has been often said heretofore. Thayer v. Hart (C. C.) 20 Fed. 693 ; Mack v. Spencer (C. C.) 52 Fed. 819 ; Lalance Co. v. Habermann Co. (C. C.) 53 Fed. 375 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Schenck (C. C.) 68 Fed. 191 . “One of the alleged prior uses took place in 1871, over 30 years before the date of the witnesses’ testimony; the other uses began in 1876, and have continued since that date; but the occurrences principally relied upon took place in 1887 and 1888, over 14 years prior to the date of the testimony.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atwood-Morrison Co. v. Sipp Electric & Machine Co.

2. ““1. In a combined abdominal pad and hose-supporter, the combination with a flat abdominal pad having a continuous integral body with a svmooth unbroken bearing or contact surface and of a size about equal to that of the upper central portion of the hypogastric region, of supports attached to said pad at its upper edge and hose-supporting straps attached to the lower edge of said pad, whereby in use strain is applied to said pad in substantially vertical lines and the pressure is localized, substantially as described.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foster Hose Supporter Co. v. O'Brien

3. ““In the Rogers device there are no supporters at the upper edge of the pad, and the strain is exerted in lateral or horizontal lines, instead of in a vertical direction. The use of the hose supporting feature in the Rogers device is purely incidental, as is shown by the statement on page 1, lines 05 to 68, of the patent, while in the applicant’s device the strain produced by the tension on the hose supporters is relied upon to produce the results desired.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foster Hose Supporter Co. v. O'Brien