Naylor v. Alsop Process Co.’s Empirical Analysis
168 F. 911 · 1909
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 1963 · most notably United States of America v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company (1914), General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co. (1916)
19 federal appellate · 17 district ·
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 Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. Kalle · Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. Kalle · King v. Anderson · Western Electric Co. v. Home Tel. Co. · Welling v. La Bau
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“■ “The patent law, however, has its proper place in the realm' of actual industrial life, and not in the limboes of parchment casuistry. The merit of a patent is to be determined, not by its standing in dialectics, but by its actual effects in the art to which it belongs. Judged’ by that test, the Andrews invention was revolutionary. Within five years 'after its discovery it had been generally applied in the milling business, both in this country and abroad. It accomplished a new and desired industrial result simply, cheaply, and efficiently. In the presence of such an experience, speculative arguments based on the prior art can seldom prevail.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““An expert, however, cannot take a process patent which has never been applied industrially and work the process in his laboratory and discover therefrom something which is not disclosed on the face of the patent, and then transfer that experience back to the time of the patent, and make it a part of tlie prior art for the purpose of defeating a meritorious invention.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is elementary that, when it is sought to ascertain the state of the art by means of prior patents, nothing can be used except what is disclosed on the face of those patents. Such patents cannot be reconstructed in the light of the invention in suit and then used as a part of the prior art. Naylor v. Alsop Process Co., 168 F. 911 , 920, 94 C. C. A. 315 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Cole
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.