Freeman v. Asmus’s Empirical Analysis
145 U.S. 226 · 1892
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1952 · most notably U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. (1942), Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1908)
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Seymour v. Osborne · Mahn v. Harwood · Eames v. Andrews · Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co. · Coon v. Wilson
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The new matter inserted in the specification of the reissue * * * constituted a broader definition on which to found claim 1 of the reissue, — a claim to ‘a blast furnace with a closed breast, where the slag is discharged through an opening or openings, cooled by water, substantially as set forth.’ * * * “ * * . * There is nothing in the original specification which indicates that any such claim was intended to be made in the original patent. On the contrary, the whole purport of that specification shows that it was intended to claim only a slag-discharge piece or cinder block, constructed and attached in a specific manner, * *. “ * * * there have been numerous decisions in this court which require that the present reissue be held invalid, although it was applied for within less than a year after the granting of the original patent. (Citing cases.)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The question is whether, in the 'light of the disclosures contained in the two patents, they are for the sa/me invention. This 'court has. said that they are if" the reissue fully describes and claims the very invention intended 'to .be secured by the original patent; if the reissue describes and claims only those things which were embraced in the invention intended to have to have been secured by the original patent; if the broader claims in the reissue are not merely suggested or indicated in the original specification but constitute parts or portions of, the invention which were intended or sought to be covered or sectored by the original patent. The required intention does not appear if the additional matter covered by the claims of the reissue is not disclosed in the original patent. If there be failure of disclosure in the original patent of matter claimed in the reissue, it will not aid the patentee that the new matter covered by the reissue was within his knowledge when he applied for his original patent. And it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification. It must appear from the face of the instrument that zvhat is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original. “As the Circuit Court of Appeals held, the original specification and claims treated! the voluntary introduction of water into the reaction chamber as a necessary step in the pr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Varian v. Llewellyn““The object of the reissue was to prevent the patent from being confined to the apparatus illustrated in the drawings and described in the specification of the original, and to enable it to cover apparatus covered by patents issued subsequently to the original, and especially apparatus covered by patent No. 230,590. The new claims of the reissue are not for the same invention set forth in the claims of the original. “It is now contended that the invention which Tirrell really made, and which he intended to secure by patent No. 130,770, was the utilizing of one electric circuit both to turn on and to light the gas; but in the description contained in the specification of the original patent there was no statement that the invention consisted in utilizing one electric circuit to do the work of turning on and lighting the gas, which formerly had required two electric circuits, nor was there any claim for such an invention. * * * The invention which Tirrell really made is what he claimed in No. 130,770. What he described in the specification of that patent and did not claim is presumed to have been old.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Varian v. Llewellyn
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.