Dill Mfg. Co. v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the plaintiff initially must have the right to sue for infringement even though his title is challenged and in the suit may be defeated; (2) he must plant his suit upon such right as a patent infringement suit requiring no aid of an equity court as a primary condition for the recovery of damages or the granting of an injunction. Dill, 125 F.2d at 678 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Combs v. Plough, Inc. · Lerco Corp. v. Haley

2. ““It is a suit wherein title first must be adjudicated, with adjudication dependent entirely upon the principles and rules of equity and involving in no degree the act of Congress conferring or protecting patent rights.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 989 - United States Fire Protection Co. v. Monocel, Inc. · 155 F. Supp. 111 - Papazian v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey

3. ““It has chosen to bring its suit as one for patent infringement, with the usual prayers for injunction, damages, and profits. It finds itself, therefore, obliged, by §§ 67 and 70 of the United States Code Annotated, Title 35, to allege title to the patent. Being neither the patentee, assignee, nor grantee, and having no record title of any kind or description, it asserts equitable ownership derived from an executory oral contract of employment with the inventor. But the execution of the agreement, and the obligation of the inventor to assign the patent alleged to be contained therein, are denied. It is clear, therefore, that until there has been an adjudication of ownership in the plaintiff there can be no recovery of damages or profits because of infringement, and no right to injunctional process. The suit, in its primary aspect, may not, therefore, be viewed otherwise than as a proceeding in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. Succeeding, it may entitle the appellant to pursue other remedies. Failing, the controversy is at an end.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 155 F. Supp. 111 - Papazian v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey