Porter-Cable Machine Co. v. Knives & Saws, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““The court heard expert witnesses, viewed demonstrations and concluded that this element was new in Heckrotli’s combination; that he achieved valuable advantages over the prior art, resulting in invention, and that defendant infringes. In view of this state of the record, of course, we can not set aside the finding of validity unless it is clearly erroneous, Graver Tank Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S. 271 , 275, 69 S.Ct. 535 , 93 L.Ed. 672 , or unless we can say, as a matter of law, that, on the admitted facts, the standard of patentable invention required by the statute of the United States has not been met. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 153, 71 S.Ct. 127 , 95 L.Ed. 162 . In view of the state of the record and the opportunity of the District Court to view demonstrations, which we do not have, we think our decisions in General Time Corp. v. Hansen Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 199 F.2d 259 and Sales Affiliates v. National Mineral Co., 7 Cir., 172 F.2d 608 , are inapplicable here.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jeoffroy Mfg. v. Graham