John Kitchen, Jr., Co. v. Levison’s Empirical Analysis
188 F. 658 · 1911
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1939
1 federal appellate · 2 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 Seymour v. Osborne
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Of course, if the words of the reissue statute, providing that the Commissioner may cause a new patent to be issued ‘for the same invention,’ should be pushed to their logical extreme, it .would render the reissue statute an absurdity. The reasoning would run as follows: The invention patented is that which is covered by the claims; therefore, if the claims are broadened or changed in any material particular, the new patent is not ‘for the same invention.’ This would, of course, reduce the law of reissues to the mere correction of evident blunders in the drawings or description (which are of comparatively infrequent occurrence), and would deprive the statute of any substantial beneficial effect.””
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.