Low v. McMaster’s Empirical Analysis
266 F. 518 · 1920
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 1969
13 federal appellate · 3 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 Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Potts v. Creager · Julia Hotchkiss Executrix of John Hotchkiss Deceased John Davenport and John Quincy v. Miles Greenwood · Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. · Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. “If there is invention in the combination of the Miles patent, it is found not in any novel arrangement' of elements, but in the substitution of a new fuel as an element of a combination otherwise old. That was the beginning and the end of Miles’ achievement. As we regard this to be his sole contribution to "the art, we think the one question of the validity of his patent is, in a word, whether the substitution of this fueL for others involves invention. On this subject it is the law, that merely to substitute superior for inferior materials, in making one or more or all of the parts'of a-machine or manufacture, is not invention, although the substitution may be of materials that are both new and useful in high degree. It is also the law, as exceptions to this-general rule, that if the substitution involved a new mode of construction; or if. it developed new properties and uses of the article made; or .where it produces a new mode of- operation, or results in a new function; or when, it is the first practical success in the art in which the substitution is made; or where the practice shows its superiority to consist not only in greater cheapness and greater utility, but also in more efficient action, it may amount to invention. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486 , 496, 23 L. Ed. 952 ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Crane Chemical Co. (C. C.) 36 F. 110 ; Potts v. Craeger, 155 U. S. 597 , 608, 15 S. Ct. 194 , 39 L. Ed. 275 ; Walker on Patents, §§ 28, 29, 36.””
4 later decisions 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.