Morley Sewing Machine Co. v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

155 federal appellate · 52 district · 3 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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where an invention is one of a primary character, and the mechanical functions performed by the machine are, as a whole, entirely new, all subsequent machines which employ substantially the same means to accomplish the same result are infringements, although the subsequent machine may contain improvements in the separate mechanisms which go to make up the machine.””

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Royer v. Schultz Belting Co. · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.

2. ““The original inventor of a machine will have a right to treat as infringers all who make machines operating on the same principle, and performing the same functions, by analogous means, or equivalent combinations; even though the infringing machine be an improvement on the original, and patentable as such. But if the invention claimed, be itself but an improvement on a known machine, by a mere change of form or combination of parts, the patentee cannot treat another as an infringer, who had improved the original machine, by use of a different form or combination, performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress any other improvement which is not a mere colorable invasion of the first.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Craig v. Michigan Lubricator Co. · Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. De Forest Wireless Telegraph Co.

3. ““Those claims are not for a result or effect, irrespective of the means by which the effect is accomplished. It is open to a subsequent inventor to accomplish the same result, if he can, by substantially different means. The effect of the rule before laid down is merely to require that, in determining whether the means employed in the Lancaster machine are substantially the same means as those employed in the Morley machine, the Morley patent is to receive a liberal construction, in view of the fact that he was a pioneer in the construction of an automatic button-sewing machine, and that h'is patent, especially in view of the character and terms of the four claims in question, is not to be limited to the particular devices or instrumentalities de- seribed by him, used in the three main elements of his machine, which, combined together, make it up.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith & Egge Manuf'g Co. v. Bridgeport Chain Co. · American Can Co. v. Hickmott Asparagus Canning Co.