Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 390 · 1926
Citation profile
251 federal appellate · 131 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 721 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
251 federal appellate · 131 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Loom Company v. Higgins · McClain v. Ortmayer · Seymour v. Osborne · Deering v. Winona Harvester Works
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 721 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The delays of the patent office ought not to cut down the effect of what has been done. The description shows that Whitford was not the first inventor. Clifford had done all that he could do to make his description public. He had taken steps that would make it public as soon as the Patent Office did its work, although, of course, amendments might be required of him before the end could be reached. We see no reason in the words or policy of the law for allowing Whitford to profit by the delay and make himself out to be the first inventor when he was not so in fact, when Clifford had shown knowledge inconsistent with the allowance of Whitford’s claim. * * * ””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Schlittler · In re Zenitz“not known or used by others in this country, before his invention or discovery thereof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“131. Affidavit of prior invention, to overcome cited patent or publication. (a) When any claim of an application is rejected on reference to a domestic patent which substantially shows or describes but does not claim the rejected invention, or on reference to a foreign patent or to a printed publication, and the applicant shall make oath to facts showing a completion of the invention in this country before the filing date of the application on which the domestic pat ent issued, or before the date of the foreign patent, or before the date of the printed publication, then the patent or publication cited shall not bar the grant of a patent to the applicant, unless the date of such patent or printed publication be more than one year prior to the date on which the application was filed in this country. (b) The showing of facts shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from said date to a subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application. Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photographic or photostatic copies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or their absence satisfactorily explained. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.