Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

280 federal appellate · 129 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he fact that the invention seems simple after it is made does not determine the question; if this were the rule many of the most beneficial patents would be stricken down.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schaum & Uhlinger, Inc. v. Copley-Plaza Operating Co. · Acme Motor Shield Corp. v. Roberts Mfg. Co.

2. ““ ‘While an art cannot he practiced except by means of physical agents, through which tho force is brought in contact with or is directed toward its object, the existence of the art is not dependent on any of the special instruments employed. It is a legal, practical invention in itself. Its essence remains unchanged, whatever variation takes place in its instruments, as long as the acts of which it is composed are properly performed.’ “And Walker on Patents (4th Ed.) § 3, states that valid process patents may he granted for ‘operations which consist entirely of mechanical transactions, but which may be performed by hand or by any of several different mechanisms or machines.’ “It is undoubtedly true, and all the cases agree, that the mere function or effect of the •operation of a machine cannot be the subject-matter of a lawful patent. But it does not follow that a method of doing a thing, so clearly indicated that those skilled in the art can avail themselves of mechanism to carry it into operation, is not the subject-matter of a valid patent. The contrary has been declared in decisions of this court.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. San Francisco Cornice Co. v. Beyrle · Buffalo Forge Co. v. City of Buffalo

3. ““The word ‘process’ is not used in the statute. The inventor of a new and useful art is distinctly entitled to the benefit of the statute as well as he who invents a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The word ‘process’ has been brought into the decisions because it is supposedly an equivalent form of expression, or included in the statutory designation of a now and useful art. “What, then, is the statutory right to a patent for a ‘process’ when the term is properly considered? Curtis, in his work on the Law of Patents, says: “ ‘A process may ho altogether new, whether the machinery by which it is carried on be new or old. A new process may be invented or discovered, which may require the use of a newly-invented machine. In such a case, if both the process and the machine were invented by the same person, he could take separate patents for them. A new process may be carried on by the use of an old machine in a modo in which it was never used before. * * * In such a case, the patent-ability of the process in no degree depends upon tho characteristic principle of tho machine, although machinery is essential to the process, and although a particular machine may be required.’ Curtis, Patents (4th Ed.) § 14, note.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Tarczyhornoch · Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.