Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
254 F.2d 191 · 1958
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 1983 · most notably Karl Ziegler, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (1973), Bros Inc. v. W. E. Grace Manufacturing Co. (1965)
39 federal appellate · 1 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 Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. · Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker · Temco Electric Motor Co v. Apco Mfg Co · Faulkner v. Gibbs
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the claim with this language in it is construed in light of the disclosures of the patent, it does, not grant a monopoly on every means or mode by which that result could be achieved. As the Act phrases it, these are confined to corresponding structures or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc., 254 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 815 , 79 S.Ct. 22 , 3 L.Ed.2d 57 (1958) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is no shibboleth. To be sure, it, or its equivalent synonyms, cannot be used to describe the invention at the very point of novelty for to do so would then be to define invention in terms of the result. But where the novelty of the combination . . . is adequately disclosed with definable limitations, other and wellknown elements need not be described in structural detail. 53 We have carefully weighed the arguments of both parties over the meaning of the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[But] a combination whether composed of all old, or some old and some new elements, is patentable if it achieves an altogether new and useful result. * * * The life of such a combination is not to be destroyed by excision of its several parts without benefit of anaesthesia, nor is the cause of its vitality to be discovered by the prosecutor's retrospective dissection.”
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.