Hobbie v. Jennison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I] n the essential nature of things, when the patentee, or the person having his rights, sells a machine or instrument whose sole value is in its use, he receives the consideration for its use and he parts with the right to restrict that use. The aHicle, in the language of the couH, passes without the limit of the monopoly. That is to say, the patentee or his assignee having in the act of sale received all the royalty or consideration which he claims for the use of his invention in that particular machine or instrument, it is open to the use of the purchaser without further restriction on account of the monopoly of the patentees, (emphasis added) (citations omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp. · 846 F. Supp. 522 - Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.

2. ““It seems to us that, although the right of Lockhart & Seelye to manufacture, to sell and to use these coffin lids was limited to the circle of 10 miles around Boston, that a purchaser from them of a single coffin acquired the right to use that coffin for the purpose for which all coffins are used; that, so far as the use of it was concerned, the patentee had received his consideration, and it was no longer within the monopoly of the patent. It would be to ingraft a limitation upon the right of use- not contemplated by the statute, nor within the reason of the contract to say that it could only be used within the 10-mile circle.” )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corp. v. United Aircraft Engineering Corp.

3. ““An assignee for Michigan of a patent for an improvement in pipes, made, sold, and delivered in Michigan pipes made according to the patent, knowing that they were to be laid in the streets of a city in Connecticut, a territory the' right for which the seller did not own under the patent, and thev were laid in that city. Held, under Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453 , 21 L. Ed. 700 , that the seller was not liable, in an action for infringement, to the owner of the patent for Connecticut.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daimler Mfg. Co. v. Conklin