Watson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
222 F.2d 689 · 1955
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably Prima Tek II Llc Highland Supply Corporation Highland Manufacturing and Sales Company Prima Tek v. A-Roo Company a-Roo Company (2000), Bell Intercontinental Corp. v. United States (1967)
53 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Waterman v. Mackenzie · United States v. General Electric Co. · Krueger v. United States · Rude v. Westcott · Heryford v. Davis
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a firmly accepted principle of law that if the patentee conveys by an instrument in writing the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States, or an undivided part or share of that exclusive right, or the exclusive right under the patent within a specified area within the United States, the conveyance constitutes an assignment of the patent, complete or partial as the case may be; and that a transfer short of that is not an assignment but a license. (Citing cases.) ****** “The agreement contained a provision relating to the termination of its exclusive character. The substance of the provision was that, in the event the corporation should after one year from the date of the agreement fail to make and sell 2,500 carts during any six-months period, the licensor should be free to license others to manufacture and sell carts. But that provision concerned itself exclusively with a condition subsequent. It did no more than provide that upon the occurrence of a stated event the grantor was empowered to terminate the exclusive right and title theretofore conveyed. It did not detract from the effectiveness of the agreement as constituting an assignment of the patent rights. (Citing cases.) ****** “The contract between Watson and O’Donnell constituted an assignment to the corporation of the invention relating to the collapsible carts. Such assignment amounted to a sale of a capital asset. * * * the income which the taxpayers received in the fo”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a firmly accepted principle of law that if the patentee conveys by an instrument in writing the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States, or an undivided part or share of that exclusive right, or the exclusive right under the patent within a specified area within the United States, the conveyance constitutes ah assignment of the patent, complete or partial as the case may be; and that a transfer short of that is not an assignment but a license. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252 , 11 S. Ct. 334 , 34 L. Ed. 923 ; United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476 , 47 S. Ct. 192 , 71 L. Ed. 362 ; Doherty Research Co. v. Vickers Petroleum Co., 10 Cir., 80 F. 2d 809 , certiorari denied 299 U. S. 545 , 57 S. Ct. 9 , 81 L. Ed. 401 ; Broderick v. Neale, 10 Cir., 201 P. 2d 621 . * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That precautionary provision [prohibiting assignment without consent] was intended to protect the rights of the parties under the contract, not to proscribe, limit, or nullify their intent and purpose to vest immediately in the transferee the right to manufacture, sell, and use the [patented invention].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.