Burt v. Evory’s Empirical Analysis
133 U.S. 349 · 1890
Citation profile
100 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 217 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2005 · most notably Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation (1938), Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart (1895)
100 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 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 Smith v. Nichols · Hill v. Wooster · Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad · Hall v. Macneale
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 217 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A mere carrying forward, a new or more extended application of the original thought, a change only in form, proportions or degree, the substitution of equivalents doing substantially the same thing in the same way, by substantially the same means, with better results, is not such invention as will sustain a patent.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A new arrangement or grouping of parts or elements of a patented article, which is the mere result of mechanical judgment, and the natural outgrowth ■of mechanical skill, is not invention. The combination of old. devices into á new article, without producing any new mode of operation, is not invention.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Their shoe performed no new function. In the construction of it' the vamp, the quarters and the expansible gore flap were cut somewhat differently, it is true, from the like parts of the shoes constructed under the earlier patents referred to, but they subserved the same purposes. It is well settled that not every improvement in an article is patentable. The test is that the improvement must be the product of an original conception.””
2 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.