Western Electric Manuf'g Co. v. Odell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““Design patents stand on as high a plane as utility patents, and require as high a degree of exercise of the inventive or originative faculty. In patentable designs a person cannot be permitted to select an existing form, and simply put it to a new use, any more than he can be permitted to take a patent for a mere double use of a machine; but the selection and adaptation of an existing form may amount to patentable design, as the adaptation of an existing mechanical device may amount to patentable invention.” Electric Manuf’g Co. v. Odell, 18 Fed. Rep. 321 . “Invention indicates genius, and the production of a new idea. Mechanical skill is applied to an old idea, and suggests how it may be modified, and made more practical.” Belting Co. v. Magowan, 27. Fed. Rep. 362.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. Saint

2. ““The adaptation of old devices or forms to new purposes, however convenient, useful or beautiful they may be in their new rdlc, is not invention. * * * For example, if one should paint upon a familiar vase a copy of Stuart’s portrait of Washington, it would not be patentable, because both elements of the combination — the portrait and the vase — are old; but if any new and original impression, or ornament, were placed upon the same vase, it would fall within the express language of the section.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phœnix Knitting Works v. Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co.