McClain v. Ortmayer’s Empirical Analysis
141 U.S. 419 · 1891
Citation profile
473 federal appellate · 166 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,087 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2016 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996)
473 federal appellate · 166 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 Market Company v. Hoffman · Merrill v. Yeomans · Keystone Bridge Company v. Phoenix Iron Company · Insurance Company v. Dutcher
Cited together with Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company
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 1,087 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statute requires the inventor to ‘particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his discovery.’ Rev. St. § 4888. When, under this statute, the inventor has done this, he has thereby disclaimed and dedicated to the public^ll other improvements and combinations apparent from his specifications and claims that are not evasions of the device and combination he claims as his own. The claims of his patent limit his exclusive privileges, and his specifications may be referred to'to explain and to restrict, but never to expand, them.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the extent to which a patented device has gone into use is an unsafe criterion, even of its aetual utility, is evident from the fact that the general introduction of manufactured articles is as often affected by extensive and judicious advertising, activity in putting the goods upon the market, and' large commissions- to' dealers, as by the intrinsic merit of the articles themselves. * * *' If the generality of sales were made the test of patentability, it would result that a person by securing a patent upon some trifling variation from previously known methods might, by energy in pushing sales or by superiority in finishing or decorating his goods, drive competitors out of the market and secure a practical monop’oly, without in fact having made the slightest contribution of value to the useful arts. * * * While this court has held in a number of cases * * * tHa.t in a doubtful case the fact that a patented article had gone into general use is evidence of its utility, it is not conclusive even of that-much less of its patentable novelty.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(W)hether the variation relied upon in any particular case is anything more than ordinary mechanical skill is a question which cannot be answered by applying the test of any general definition.”
10 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.