Green v. Le Clair’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.2d 74 · 1928
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1997
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Waterman v. Mackenzie · Gayler v. Wilder · Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works · Littlefield v. Perry · Rude v. Westcott
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The patentee or his assigns may, by instrument in writing, assign, grant, and convey, either (1), the whole patent, comprising the exclusive right to make; use, and vend an invention throughout the United States; or (2.) an undivided part or share of that exclusive right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and throughout a specified part of the United States. [Rev.Stat.] § 4898 [ 35 U.S.C.A. § 47 ]. A transfer of either of these three kinds of interests is an assignment, properly speaking, and vests in the assignee a title in so much of the patent itself * * *. Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. * * * ” ¡”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no question but that the instrument executed by Le Clair and Sauerman * * * conferred on Sauerman an unqualified monopoly in the patent throughout the forty-three states not named in the agreement, and therefore Le Clair was without capacity to bring this suit in his own name.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“right to sue for future infringements is not separable from the monopoly conferred by a patent, but is merely an incident of that monopoly,”
1 later decision 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.