Lourie Implement Co. v. Lenhart’s Empirical Analysis
130 F. 122 · 1904
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1995 · most notably Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co. (1935), Frick Co. v. Lindsay (1928)
15 federal appellate · 7 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 Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy · Burr v. Duryee · National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co. · Sewall v. Jones · Kinloch Tel. Co. v. Western Electric Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A copy of the thing described in a patent, either without variation, or with such variations as are consistent with its being in substance the same thing, is for all the purposes of the patent law the same device as that described in the patent. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531 , 573, 17 L. Ed. 650 . One who claims and secures a patent for a new machine thereby necessarily claims and secures a patent for every mechanical equivalent for that device, because, within the meaning of the patent law, every mechanical equivalent of a device is the same .thing as the device itself. A device which is constructed on the same principle, which has the same mode of operation, and which accomplishes the same result as another by the same means, or by equivalent mechanical means, is the same device, and a claim in a patent of one such device claims and secures the other. Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120 , 125, 24 L. Ed. 935 . The sliding, slatted, adjustable plate of the appellant, .with.its thickened, flattened lower edge or foot by the side of, and seven-eighths of an inch distant from, the edge of the share of the plow, involves the same principle, has the same mode of operation, and performs the same function — the regulation of the tilting of the plow. — by mechanical means equivalent to the adjustable sliding plate of Lenhart, with its thin edge bent against the plowshare, so that it may slide under its edge when it is depressed below it. One may not escape infringement by adding to or”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.