Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 F.1d 531 - Prindle v. Brown

Prindle v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

155 F. 531 · 1907

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
January 1930
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1930

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

401907191019201930decided

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 Swift Company v. United States · State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · In re Hien · Prindle v. Brown

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

  1. ““It is not necessary in order to complete an invention that there be a machine constructed, or even a model. The invention may be disclosed by the application sufficiently to entitle the patentee to priority as of the date of the application, or it may have been disclosed by a machine or model, or in some other concrete manner, a long time before the application was filed, so that the patent whenever applied for would go back to that disclosure.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The relative priority of inventions is determined, first, by the dates of the respective patents therefor. But this is not conclusive. Evidence outside of Hie patents may be given to prove priority. The date of the application, if it describes the invention sufficiently, is conclusive evidence that the invention was made prior to such date.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““An application of the character which we have described is of itself a positive and absolute exhibition of everything which the statute requires to constitute an invention.””
    1 later decision 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.