Goudy v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
247 F. 782 · 1917
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1942
3 federal appellate · 2 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 Gorham Company v. White · Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. · Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Company v. Wagner Electric & Manufacturing Company · Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co. · Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to me that the designer’s right to a design patent is complete when he has produced a drawing or model which is a complete guide to the artificer of the article of manufacture; and, though design relates to appearance, appearance to the eye of the copying artificer satisfies the requirements of the act, even though the artificer applies the design to a die, or a type face, not intended for direct observation on account of its beauty, but for reproduction. * * * “As it is the embodiment of the design which gives such ‘articles of manufacture’ and such marketable products their principal value, is there any sufficient reason for denying to the designer the right to patent his design ‘for an article of manufacture’ of this class? Or must he claim his design for the article of manufacture which is the product of the die or similar instrument of reproduction of the design? * * * “Having in mind the practical division between the work of designing and the work of manufacturing according to the design, and also the very important consideration that it is the appearance of the patented design which is to furnish to the manufacturer full direction as to the shape or configuration of his article of manufacture, it is quite ob-. vious that the type founder who selects this patented design is led to do so by its appearance and artistic quality as exhibited in the patent drawing. He has received such full instruction as to enable him to manufacture an article which owes its chie”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cooper v. Robertson
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.