Corbin v. Taussig’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is to be borne in mind that Congress has legislated (Itev. St. § 4921 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3395]) with a view of affording the patentee ampie redress against the infringer, it not only makes the latter liable for damages ■ — sometimes three-fold damages — but for all profits derived from tile use or sale of plaintiff's invention. The rule as to the burden of proof has, however, been so applied that this statutory right has been often nullified by those in-fringers who had enough to smother the patent with improvements belonging to themselves or to third persons. In such eases the greater the wrong the greater the immunity; the greater the number of improvements the greater the difficulty of separating the profits. And if Umt difficulty could only be converted into an impossibility, the defendant retained all the gains, because tiie injured patentees could not separate what the guilty infringer has made impossible of separation. Manifestly such consequences demonstrate that either the rule or its application is wrong. The rule is sound, for it but announces the general proposition that the plaintiff must prove its 'case and carry the burden imposed by law upon every person seeking to recover money •or property from another. But the principle must not be pressed, so far as to override others equally important in the administration.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bemis Car Box Co. v. J. G. Brill Co.