Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There, the court had before it a patent on a gaming device commonly referred to as a pin ball game. This court, 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 349 , had held the patent valid and infringed. The claim called for a certain conductor means ‘imbedded in’ the table. Previously a claim which required that the conductor means be ‘carried by’ the table had been disallowed in the Patent Office. The Supreme Court, as in its second deci sion in the instant litigation, took the case solely on the issue of infringement, found non-infringement and reversed this court. In doing so the court stated 315 U.S. at page 136 , 62 S.Ct. at page 518 : ‘Whatever may be the appropriate scope and application of the doctrine of equivalents, where a claim is allowed without a restrictive amendment, it has long been settled that recourse may not be had to that doctrine to recapture claims which the patentee has surrendered by amendment.’ The court further stated: ‘By the amendment, he recognized and emphasized the difference between the two phrases and proclaimed his abandonment of all that is embraced in that difference. [Citing cases.] The difference which he thus disclaimed must be regarded as material, and since the amendment operates as a disclaimer of that difference it must be strictly construed against him.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harold M. Lewis v. Avco Manufacturing Corporation and the Harry Alter Co., Inc. · Lewis v. Avco Manufacturing Corp.

2. ““In our opinion, the application of the doctrine of equivalency in this case is to ignore the teachings of the patent, * * and, more pointedly perhaps, the representations by which [the validity of the claims] has been sustained in the courts. While the difference between plaintiff’s composition and those accused may not be great, it is that difference which distinguished plaintiff’s composition from the prior art and which enabled it to sustain the validity of its grant. It is now es-topped from claiming otherwise.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. United States · International Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co.

3. “Unless it can be determined that the Master's finding in fixing a reasonable royalty at 5 cents per pound of rod deposited is clearly erroneous, Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prevents the setting aside of the finding. The Master heard a lengthy trial. He also had the benefit of extensive briefs and arguments. Although these factors, themselves, do not insure against error, they do support the view that the issue in regard to the amount of a reasonable royalty was presented before the Master in a manner to afford full and deliberate consideration of the evidence. The evidence, as well as the Master's related findings of fact, sustain the conclusion that on this point the Master was not in error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Union Carbide Corporation v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., and the Lincoln Electric Company, Union Carbide Corporation v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., and the Lincoln Electric Company