Coupe v. Royer’s Empirical Analysis
155 U.S. 565 · 1895
Citation profile
138 federal appellate · 42 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 352 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996), Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995)
138 federal appellate · 42 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 McClain v. Ortmayer · Tilghman v. Proctor · Rubber Company v. Goodyear · Sessions v. Romadka
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 352 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“compensation for the pecuniary loss he (the patentee) has suffered from the infringement, without regard to the question whether the defendant has gained or lost by his unlawful acts.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘•Where the defense denies that the invention used by defendant is identical with that included in the plaintiff’s patent, the court defines the patented invention as indicated by the language of the claims. The jury judge whether the invention so defined covers the art or article employed by the defendant.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At law the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages compensation for the pecuniary loss he has suffered from the infringement, without regard to the question whether the defendant has gained or lost by his unlawful acts. * * * It is evident, therefore, that the learned judge applied the wrong standard in instructing the jury that they should find what, the defendants might be shown to have gained from the use of the patented invention. * * * Upon this state of facts the evidence disclosing the existence of no license fee, no impairment of the plaintiff’s market, — in short, no damages of any kind,— we think the court should have instructed the jury, if they found for the plaintiff at all, to find nominal damages only.””
2 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.