Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

98 federal appellate · 24 district · 2 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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As both applications were pending in the Patent Office at the same time,' and as the respective 'letters were granted, it is obvious that it must have been the judgment of the officials that there was no occasion for an interference, and that there were features which distinguished one invention from the other. In Pavement Co. v. City of Elizabeth, 4 Pish. Pat. Gas. 189, Fed. Cas.' No. 312, Mr. Justice Strong said: ‘The grant of letters patent was virtually a decision of the Patent Office that there is a substantial difference between the inventions. It raises the presumption that according to the claims of the latter patentees this invention is not an infringement of the earlier patent.’ It would also ‘seem to be evident that as the purpose of the invention was the same, and as the principal parts of the respective machines described were substantially similar, it was also the judgment of the office that the distinguishing features were to be found in some of the smaller and perhaps less important devices described and claimed.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Byerley v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co. · Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. Atlanta Gaslight Co.

2. ““As both applications were pending m the patent office at the same time, and as the respective letters were granted, it is obvious that it must have been the judgment of the officials that there was no occasion for an interference, and that there were features which distinguished one invention from the other.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Mach. Corp. v. Benthall Mach. Co. · Hoppenstand v. Mack-International Motor Truck Corp.

3. ““Coming as he does in the train of numerous inventors that had preceded him, whose inventions had been patented and put into practical use, we must conclude that Boyd, if entitled to anything, is only entitled to the precise devices described and claimed in his patent. Of course, it follows that if the defendant’s specific devices are different from those of Boyd, no combination of such devices could be deemed an infringement of any combination claimed by Boyd.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ball Bearing Co. v. Star Ball Retainer Co.