MaGowan v. New York Belting & Packing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““Within the requirements of Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192 , 200, 2 Sup. Ct. 225 , 27 L. Ed. 438 , we think that Gately made a substantial discovery or invention, which added to our knowledge, and made a step in advance in the uáeful arts; that within the case of Hollister v. Benedict Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 59 , 73, 5 Sup. Ct. 717 , 28 L. Ed. 901 , what Gately did was not merely the work of a skilled mechanic, who applied only his common knowledge- and experience, and perceived the reason of the failure of McBurney’s packing, and supplied' what was obviously wanting; and that the present ease involves not simply ‘the display of the expected skill of the calling,’ involving ‘only the exercise of the ordinary faculties of reasoning upon the materials supplied by a special knowledge, and the facility of manipulation, which results from its habitual and intelligent practice,’ but shows the creative work of the inventive faculty.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New York Belting & P. Co. v. Sierer

2. ““The complainant’s patent is nearly on the line dividing invention from mechanical skill, but, after carefully comparing it with the exhibits which were put in to show anticipation and its lack of patentability, I am of the opinion that the combination reveals invention, not so much because the packing is more elastic by reason of the addition of pure hard rubber, but because the patent discloses a new and better method of obtaining a tight joint between the packing and the piston rod than has been obtained by any other combination of elements, new or old. It is a fact not to be overlooked, and has much weight, that the product manufactured under it went at once into such extensive public use as almost to supersede all packing made under other methods. Such a fact is pregnant evidence of its novelty, value, and usefulness, and accounts for the defendant’s infringement””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co.

3. ““None of these packings show anything which bears upon the Gate!/ invention, except that they show piston-rod packings, but not having the construction or the characteristics found, in the Gately invention. * * * In the Gately packing »the parts are kept together and in place solely by reason of the fact that the rubber has been subjected to vulcanization, thus making the packing a homogeneous whole, and not a strip rolled up upon itself, a na thus kept together. Therefore, none of the patents introduced by the defendants show the Gately invention.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New York Belting & P. Co. v. Sierer