Topliff v. Topliff’s Empirical Analysis
145 U.S. 156 · 1892
Citation profile
420 federal appellate · 186 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,046 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. (1944), Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar (1963)
420 federal appellate · 186 district · 10 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 Waterman v. Mackenzie · White v. Dunbar · Mahn v. Harwood · Miller v. Brass Co.
Cited together with Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Mahn v. Harwood · Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Miller v. Brass Co. · Potts v. Creager
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 1,046 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * It is not sufficient to constitute an anticipation that the device relied upon might, by modification, be made to accomplish the function performed by the patent in question, if it were not designed by its maker, nor adapted, nor actually used, for the performance of such functions.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated, constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy; and, in view of the fact that valuable inventions are often placed in the hands of inexperienced persons to prepare such specifications and claims, it is no matter of surprise that the latter frequently fail to describe with requisite certainty the exact invention * * *.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Willingham · In re Johnsen““ * * * From this summary of the authorities it may be regarded as the settled rule of this court that ;the power to reissue may be exercised when the patent is- inoperative by reason of the fact that the specification as originally drawn was defective or insufficient, of the claims were' narrower .than the actual invention of the patentee, provided the error has arisen from inadvertence, or mistake, and the. patentee is guilty of ho fraud or deception; but that such reissues are subject to the following qualifications: “First. That it shall be for the same invention as the. original patent, as such invention appears from the specification and claims of such original. “Second. That due diligence must be exercised in discovering the mistake in the original patent, and that, if it be sought for the purpose of enlarging the claim, the lapse of two years will ordinarily, though not always, be treated as evidence of an abandonment of the new matter to the public to the same extent that a failure by the inventor to apply for a patent within two years from the public use or sale of his invention is regarded by the statute as conclusive evidence of an abandonment of the patent to the public. “Third. That this court will not review the decision of the commissioner upon the question of inadvertence, accident, or.mistake, unless the matter is manifest from the record; but that the question whether the application was made within a reasonable time is, in most, if not in all, such cases, ”
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.