Siemund v. Enderlin’s Empirical Analysis
206 F. 283 · 1913
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co. · National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co. · Fuller v. Yentzer · Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nor can it be held that an arrangement of the parts of a device (described in prior patents and used for a purpose and in a way shown in those patents, but, coupled with the skill of the operator, made to be effective only under certain conditions, which will produce results desirable under certain circumstances) can be patentable as a new invention, when the earlier patents show both an understanding of the possibility of these results, the existence of such an arrangement of parts and of the conditions produced, together with an understanding of what is necessary for a skilled operator to get these results, even though the reason assigned, or the explanation of the cause of the results themselves, be mistakenly stated and attributed to incorrect factors or parts in doing the work. * * * Nor is mere adjustment patentable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Luten v. Allen
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.