Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart’s Empirical Analysis
158 U.S. 68 · 1895
Citation profile
127 federal appellate · 47 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1981 · most notably Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. (1898), Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
127 federal appellate · 47 district · 1 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 Tilghman v. Proctor · O'Reilly v. Morse · Cochrane v. Deener · Smith v. Nichols · Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co.
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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is equally clear, however, that a valid patent cannot be obtained for a process which involves nothing more than the operation of a piece of mechanism or, in other words, for the function of a machine.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be said in general that processes of manufacture which involve chemical or other similar elemental action are patentable, though mechanism may be necessary in the application or carrying out of such process, while those which consist solely in the operation of a machine are not. Most processes which have„been held to be patentable require the aid of mechanism in their practical application, but, where such mechanism is subsidiary to the chemical action, the fact that the patentee may be entitled to a patent upon his mechanism does not impair his right to a patent for the process, since he would lose the benefit of his real discovery, which might be applied in a dozen different ways, if he were not entitled to such patent. But, if the operation of his device be purely mechanical, no such considerations apply, since the function of the machine is entirely independent of any chemical or other similar action.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In short, this is a patent only for superior workmanship, and, within all the authorities, invalid. This court has repeatedly stated that all improvement is not invention. If a certain device differs from what precedes it only in superiority of finish, or in greater accuracy of detail, it is but the carrying forward of an old idea, and does not amount to invention.””
3 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.