Tansel v. Higonnet’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 457 · 1954
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 1971 · most notably Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. Fenn (1960), John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. Goodrich (1971)
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on Hildreth v. Mastoras · Field v. Knowles · Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher · Martin v. Friendly
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The capacity to perform in the manner intended for the machine in issue, though only in a crude way, is sufficient to discharge the inventor's burden of proof for actual reduction to practice. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a fundamental advance in the printing art whereby text or copy * * * is composed direct on film.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“operated with something less than commercial printing quality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.