Bradley v. Eccles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Some six years prior to the patent in suit the same patentee had taken out one for a thill coupling the iron parts of which, including the spherical knuckle on the thill fitting into a similarly shaped recess in the draft eye, are substantially the same as in the patent in suit. * * * There could be no invention merely in applying a washer between these metal parts. * * * The use of leather washers to relieve friction, prevent rattling, secure even pressure, and avoid wear and tear between metal surfaces, has been the common property, not only of mechanics, but also of all persons possessing ordinary intelligence, for many generations. If the bearing surfaces are square, or circular, or triangular—cylindrical, conical, or spherical—ordinary common sense would suggest that the scrap of leather to be employed must be of such shape and size as reasonably to conform thereto. If the surfaces are close together, the leáther must be thin; if far apart, it should be thicker. * * * If all the patentee had done was to put a flat leather washer of suitable size and shape between those parts, this court would not have found invention in such a contrivance, even though after it was forced into place by the closing of the draft eye upon the spherical knuckle the leather assumed the shape shown in the patent. The patentee, however, went a step further. He testified that ‘after repeated experiments [he] devised a way for pressing up a leather packing into the form shown in the drawing,’ ‘pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bradley v. Metal Stamping Co.

2. ““The complainant in this suit realizes that the charge of infringement cannot be sustained unless our prior opinion is in some respects modified. His brief contains this statement: “ ‘When this case was before the Court of Appeals '¿he patent was sustained, but the claim was erroneously and unjustly limited by the opinion to a spherical packing, integral, molded before application; and complainant therefore requests the court at this time to take cognizance of this fact, and correct the limitations imposed by that opinion.’ “In support of this contention it is suggested that there is nothing whatever in the claim which says that the device must be integral, or that it may not be made of two separate halves, or that it must be molded into a spherical form before application. This suggestion is correct — there is no such restricting language in the claim — and the phrase used in our former opinion, ‘The patent must be confined * * * to the precise device of the claim,’ would have been more accurately expressed, had it used the words ‘precise device shown.’ But it is manifest from the opinion that the claim was limited, not because of its language, but because the prior art left no room for invention unless it was restricted in the manner indicated. The opinion expressly stated that, although the specification stated that the packing might be composed of separate halves, such modification could not be sustained, in view of the Murray (Canadian) patent, showing a thill iron with ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bradley v. Eccles

3. ““A hard leather packing—molded before application into such shape as will cover the knuckle completely—integral, but with an open longitudinal joint which permits it to be sprung open so as to slip over the knuckle, whereupon it resumes its spherical shape.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bradley v. Metal Stamping Co.