Johnson v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
234 F. 886 · 1916
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1952
6 federal appellate · 3 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 Brown v. Piper · Dunbar v. Myers · Brown v. Piper · Atlas Underwear Co. v. Cooper Underwear Co. · Stevens v. Rodgers Boiler & Burner 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘With garments made under the Muller British patent, 8,766 of 1896, the Cook United States patent, 615,632 ot 1898, the Xtocheite British provisional specification, 1,343 of 1864, and the Tiehy Austria patent, 27,283 of 1907, laid on a table before the man skilled in the art, we think there was so little opportunity for inventive ability that patentability on the record as it now stands is doubtful. We do not confine our references to those just recited. They are merely examples of the prior art, all of which wo have regarded as pertinent in arriving at our conclusion. s * This brings us to a consideration of Exhibit G for identification, which was excluded by the trial court. Tills was offered by defendant as a specimen of the-so-called Holmes garments. We regard this as a closed crotch garment. To call it otherwise, in considering the prior art, is, we think, again drawing too fine a distinction. With this garment properly in evidence in connection with the other prior art, we think that no invention was needed to devise the particular construction shown in the patent, and hence we are satisfied that claim 1 would be void for lack of patentable novelty. Whether, therefore, this exhibit and the testimony relating to it were correctly excluded, becomes an Important question in the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Lambert““(1) To take proof as to whether the Holmes garments like, or substantially like, Defendant’s Exhibit G for identification, offered as a specimen of these garments, had been in use or on sale prior to the patent in suit; and “(2) To take such testimony, if any, as it may deem advisable, to explain the construction and mode of operation of Exhibit G or similar garments, and thereupon to return the proofs to this court, with the opinion of the District Court as to (1) and as to (2), if there be any conflict in the testimony as to the manner in which the Exhibit G or similar garments were actually constructed, or as to the inode’ of operation of such Exhibit G or similar garments.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Lambert
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.