Hill v. Wooster’s Empirical Analysis
132 U.S. 693 · 1890
Citation profile
145 federal appellate · 51 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 300 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Lovell Manuf'G Co v. Cary (1893), Burt v. Evory (1890)
145 federal appellate · 51 district · 4 state decisions
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 Thompson v. Boisselier · Yale Lock Manuf'G Co v. Sargent · Gardner v. Herz · Yale Lock Manuf'G Co v. Greenleaf
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 300 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[N]o adjudication can be made in favor of the applicant, unless the alleged invention for which a patent is sought is a patentable invention. The litigation * * * cannot be concluded by solely determining an issue as to which of [the parties] in fact first made [the invention].””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ 'But, on the other hand, in order to anticipate the claim of a patent, all of its elements, either identically or substantially, must be found in the same relation and combination with each other in some one patent or device;’ ” and proceeded to say: “To the doctrine of selection he refused to subscribe, and for that reason failed to find the invention of Perkins in the patent of O’Connor. In matters of fact the entire testimony of the witnesses shows them to be in substantial accord. The differences of opinion are explained by Mr. Powers’ mistaken understanding of the rule by which the patentability of combinations of old devices should be determined. That the mere bringing together, in a new combination, of old devices or elements, especially if they belong to the same art or arts kindred to that; to which the combination belongs, does not constitute invention is well settled. ‘It is not enough that a thing shall be new, in the sense that in the shape or form in which it is produced it shall not have been before known, and that it shall be useful, but it must, under the constitution and statute, amount to an invention or discovery.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burt v. Evory · Kelly v. Clow
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.