O'Connell v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 1950
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Pringle v. Dunn · Barnett v. Proskauer & Co. · 24 App. D.C. 469 - Hammond v. Basch · Baldwin v. Bornheimer · Barry v. Hoffman
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This brings us to the serious question in the case. O’Connell, being the first to conceive and disclose, is entitled to the patent over Schmidt, provided he used reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting his invention. It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this .proposition, so often has it been approved. This is so even though Schmidt had actually or constructively reduced it to practice before him. O’Connell, having first conceived and disclosed the invention, was under no obligation of diligence until just prior to the date when his rival entered the field. The time to be considered is five months and ten days. There is no hard and fast rule by which to determine the question of due diligence. In other words ‘there is no general rule of what constitutes due diligence, that being a question to be determined by all the facts and surrounding circumstances in the particular case.’ Let us examine the facts and circumstances in the case before us. O’Connell had conceived the idea, and had embodied it in models which almost amounted to a reduction to practice, and which, had the second one been connected up and tested, would have amounted to a reduction to practice. He had placed the invention .before those who, under certain conditions, were entitled to patent it. At the time when his rival entered' the field he was urging that the invention 'be accepted and patented. That was in February, 1902. In April or May of the same year, O’Con-nell becoming more pers”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payne v. Moore
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.