Bauer Cie v. James O'Donnell’s Empirical Analysis
229 U.S. 1 · 1913
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 62 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 328 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (1926), Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. (1942)
103 federal appellate · 62 district · 19 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company v. United States of America · Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.
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 328 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The packages were sold [by the jobber from wliom a.ppeilee purchased] with as full and complete title as any article could have when sold in the open ma rket, excepting only the attempt to limit the sale or use when sold for not less than SI. * * * The right to vend, conferred by the patent law has been eatercised, and the added restriction is depond the protection, and purpose of the act. This being so, the case is brought within that line of cases in which this court from the beginning has held that a patentee who has parted with a patented machine by passing title to a purchaser has placed the article beyond the, limits of the monopoly secured by the patent act.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A patentee may not by notice limit the price at which future retail sales of the patented article may be made, such article being in the hands of a retailer 67/ purchase from a jobber who has paid to the agent of the patentee rhe full price asked for the article sold.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““for sale and use at a price not less than one dollar ($1.00). Any sale in violation of this condition, or use when so sold, will constitute an infringement of our patent * * * under which Sanatogen is manufactured, and all persons so selling or using packages or contents will be liable to injunction and damages. A purchase is an acceptance of this condition. Ail rights revert to the undersigned in the event of violation.””
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.