Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company No 6 Dowagiac Manufacturing Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

281 federal appellate · 79 district · 1 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 520 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * So, had the plaintiff pursued a course of granting licenses to others to deal in articles embodying the invention, the established royalty could have been proved as indicative of the value of what was taken, and therefore as affording a basis for measuring the damages. Philip v. Nock, 17 Wall. 460 , 462 [ 21 L.Ed. 679 ]; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 , 70 [ 23 L.Ed. 802 , 805]; Clark v. Wooster, 119 U.S. 322 , 326] 7 S.Ct. 217 , 30 L.Ed. 392 , 393]; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 , 143 [ 8 S.Ct. 894 , 31 L.Ed. 644 ], But, as the patent had been kept a close monopoly, there was no established royalty. In that situation it was permissible to show the value by proving what would have been a reasonable royalty, considering the nature of the invention, its utility and advantages, and the extent of the use involved. * * *”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Schieble Toy & Novelty Co. · Malleable Iron Range Co. v. Lee

2. “The right conferred by a patent under our law is confined to the United States and its Territories (Rev.Stat., § 4884) and infringement of this right cannot be predicated on acts wholly done in a foreign country.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp. · WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.

3. ““It is quite plain, as we think, that the patent was not for a new and operative grain drill, but only for particular improvements in a type of grain drill then in use and well-known. The invention was so described in the specification forming part of the patent. * * * In keeping with this statement the claims in the patent were limited to a suitable construction and arrangement of spring pressure rods in combination with certain correlated elements of the seeding part of a grain drill — the part which opens the furrows, guides the seed into them and then closes them. Of course, this was an important part, but it was only that; for other parts were required to complete the machine and make it operative. * * * Only when all the parts were present and so adjusted as to perform their respective functions was the drill a practical and successful machine. In this respect no change resulted from the invention covered by the patent. It effected material improvements in one part, but did not obviate or diminish the necessity for the others. We think the evidence, although showing that the invention was meritorious and materially contributed to the value of the infringing drills as marketable machines, made it clear that their value was not entirely attributable to the invention, but was due in a substantial degree to the unpatented parts or features.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Deere & Webber Co. · 325 F. Supp. 2d 841 - Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP