I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
272 U.S. 429 · 1926
Citation profile
245 federal appellate · 90 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 575 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co (1927), Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935)
245 federal appellate · 90 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedI. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Federal Open Market Committee of Federal Reserve System v. Merrill · Mahn v. Harwood · Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. · Shepard v. Carrigan
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 575 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The applicant having limited his claim by amendment and accepted a patent, brings himself within the rules that if the claim to a combination be restricted to specified elements, all must be regarded as material, and that limitations imposed by the inventor, especially such as were introduced into an application after it had been persistently rejected, must be strictly construed against the inventor and looked upon as disclaimers. [Citing cases.] The patentee is thereafter estopped to claim the benefit of his rejected claim or such a construction of his amended claim as would be equivalent thereto. [Citing case.]'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where an applicant for a patent on a mechanical combination or process is compelled by the rejection of his application by the Patent Office to narrow 'his claim by the introduction of a new element in the combination or a new step in the process, he cannot, after the issue of the patent, broaden his claim by omitting the element or step he was compelled to include in order to secure his patent. If dissatisfied with the rejection, he should appeal therefrom, and where, in order to get his patent, he accepts one with a narrower claim, he is bound by it. Whether the action of the Examiner was right or wrong, the court may not inquire. The applicant having limited his claim by amendment and having accepted a patent with such claim, brings himself within the rules: that, if a claim to a combination is restricted to specified elements, or a claim to a process is restricted to specified steps or a series of acts, all must be regarded as material; that limitations imposed by the applicant, especially those added by amendment after a claim has been rejected, must be construed against the inventor and regarded as disclaimers; and that the patentee is thereafter estopped to claim the benefit of the rejected claim or such a construction of his amended claim as would be equivalent thereto.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We concur in the finding of the District Judge that the omission of the word “rear” was through a clerical error due to oversight, and that both the counsel for the applicant and the examiner understood that it was contained in claim 8 as well as the others; and we are of opinion that the claim should be construed and have the same effect as if it had been included. This is not in any real sense, a re-making of the claim; but is merely giving to it the meaning which was intended by the applicant and understood by the examiner.”
3 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.