Eames v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 federal appellate · 45 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 313 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Patented inventions cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind, though of prior date, unless the description and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, to make, construct, and practice the invention to the same practical extent as they would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent. Mere vague and general representations will not support such a defence, as the knowledge supposed to be derived from the publication must be sufficient to enable those skilled in the art or science to understand the nature and operation of the invention, and to carry it into practical use. Whatever may be the particular circumstances under which the publication takes place, the account published, to be of any effect to support such a defence, must be an account of a complete and operative invention capable of being put into practical operation.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re LeGrice · Chase v. Fillebrown

2. ““It may be that the inventor did not know what the scientific principle was, or that, knowing it, he omitted, from accident or design, to set it forth. That does not vitiate the patent. He sets forth the process or mode of operation which ends in the result, and the means for working out the process or 'node of. operation. The principle referred to is only the why and the wherefore.' That is not required to be set forth.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goshen Sweeper Co. of Grand Rapids v. Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. · Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. v. St. Louis Pulverizer Co.

3. ““It does not follow, either from the amended or the original patent, that a driven well, according to the process described, may not he constructed and operated, notwithstanding in its construction some rock has to he penetrated. There may be a layer of rock on the surface. When this is removed or cut through, a driven well may then he constructed in the space thus uncovered from the obstruction. So, if a stratum of rock is met in the course of driving the rod or tube, that layer may he penetrated, not by driving the rod or tube through it, but by other usual means of boring and drilling. After it is passed, the rod or tube, having been inserted in the opening made through the rock, may then be driven in the usual manner through the remainder of its course until it reaches a water-bearing stratum of earth, as if no rock had been met in its passage.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. v. Lowrey