Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.’s Empirical Analysis
170 U.S. 537 · 1898
Citation profile
386 federal appellate · 271 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,148 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950), General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. (1938)
386 federal appellate · 271 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Seymour v. Osborne · Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy · Tilghman v. Proctor
Cited together with Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy
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 1,148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But after all, even if the patent for a machine be a pioneer, the alleged, infringer must have done something more than reach the same result. He must have reached it by substantially the same or similar means, or the rule that the function of a machine cannot be patented is of no practical value. To say that the patentee of a pioneer invention for a new mechanism is entitled to every mechanical device which produces the same result is to hold, in other language, that he is entitled to patent his function. * * * That two machines produce the same effect will not justify the assertion that they are substantially the same, or that the devices used are therefore mere equivalents for those of another.””
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“, the Court said: 243 The patentee may bring the defendant within the letter of his claims, but if the latter has so far changed the principle of the device that the claims of the patent, literally construed, have ceased to represent his actual invention, he is as little subject to be adjudged an infringer as one who has violated the letter of a statute has to be convicted, when he has done nothing in conflict with its spirit and intent. 244 The”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To what liberality of construction these claims are entitled depends to a certain extent upon the character of the invention, and whether it is what is termed in ordinary parlance a ‘pioneer.’ This word, although used somewhat loosely, is commonly understood to denote a patent covering a function never before performed, a wholly novel device, or one of such novelty and importance as to mark a distinct step in the progress of the art, as distinguished from a mere improvement or perfection of what had gone before.””
13 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.