Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co.’s Empirical Analysis
123 U.S. 87 · 1887
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 20 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1985 · most notably Topliff v. Topliff (1892), I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. (1926)
72 federal appellate · 20 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 Seymour v. Osborne · Mahn v. Harwood · Burr v. Duryee · Gill v. Wells
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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court adheres strictly to the view, that, under the statute, the commissioner has no jurisdiction to grant a reissued patent for an invention substantially different from that embodied in the original patent * * *. [T]he things * * * to be included [in the new description and new claims] are only the things which properly belonged to the invention as embodied in the original patent; that what that invention was is to be ascertained by consulting the original patent; and that, while the new description may properly' contain things which are indicated in the original specification, drawings or patent-office model, (though not sufficiently described in the original specification,) it does not follow that what was indicated in the original specification, drawings or patent-office model is to be considered as a part of the invention, unless the court can see, from a comparison of the two patents, that the original patent embod ied, as the invention intended to be secured by it, what the claims of the reissue are intended to cover. [Emphasis added.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““That what was suggested or indicated in the original specifications, drawing, or Patent Office model is not to be considered as a part of the invention intended to have been covered by the original patent unless it can be seen from a comparison of the two patents that the invention which the original patent was intended to cover embraced the things thus suggested or indicated in the original specifications, drawings, or Patent Office model, and unless the original specifications indicated that those things were embraced in the invention intended to have been secured by the original patent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The surrender of valid patents, and the granting of reissued patents thereon, with expanded or equivocal • claims, where the original was clearly neither ‘inoperative nor invalid/ and whose specification is neither ‘defective nor insufficient/ is a great abuse of the privilege granted by the statute, and productive of great injury to the public. This privilege was not given to the patentee or his assignee in order that the patent may be rendered more elastic or expansive, and therefore more ‘available’ for the suppression of all other inventions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.