Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

327 federal appellate · 150 district · 18 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 892 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The scope of every patent is limited to the invention described in the claims contained in it, read in the light of the specification.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs · Henry v. City of Los Angeles

2. ““It has long been settled that the patentee receives nothing from the law which he did not have before, and that the only effect of his patent is to restrain others from manufacturing, using or selling that which he has invented. The patent law simply protects him in the monopoly of that which he has invented and has described in the claims of his patent.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. · Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

3. “[I]t proves that, under color of its patent, the owner intends to and does derive its profit, not from the invention on which the law gives it a monopoly, but from the unpatented supplies with which it is used, and which are wholly without the scope of the patent monopoly, thus in effect extending the power to the owner of the patent to fix the price to the public of the unpatented supplies as effectively as he may fix the price on the patented machine.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dawson Chemical Company v. Rohm and Haas Company · Rohm and Haas Company v. Dawson Chemical Company