Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 U.S. 299 - Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.

Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

158 U.S. 299 · 1895

Citation profile

292
cited by 292 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
April 2005
most recently cited

171 federal appellate · 52 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 292 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2005 · most notably Grinnell Washing Mach Co v. E E Johnson Co (1918), Holmes v. Hurst (1899)

171 federal appellate · 52 district ·

580189519001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Brown v. Piper · Dunbar v. Myers · Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad

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

  1. ““And the criterion for distinguishing between patentable combination and mere aggregation is thus tersely stated by Mr. Justice Brown in Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, 158 U.S. 299, 302 , 15 S.Ct. 831, 833 , 39 L.Ed. 991 : ‘Unless the combination accomplishes some new result, the mere multiplicity of elements does not make it patentable. So long as each element performs some old and well-known function, the result is not a patentable combination, but an aggregation of elements.’ ””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While patent cases are usually disposed of upon bill, answer, and proof, there is no objection, if the patent be manifestly invalid upon its face, to the point being raised on demurrer, and the case being determined upon issues so formed. We have repeatedly held that a patent may be declared invalid for want of. novelty, though no such defense be set up in the answer.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In fact, the combination claimed is a pure aggregation.”
    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.