Knapp v. Will & Baumer Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is true that invention may reside in a new combination of old elements. Every new combination of old elements, however, is not patentable. But as this court said in Steffens v. Steiner, 2 Cir., 232 F. 862 , 147 C.C.A. 56 : “ ‘The question in the case at bar is not whether a design patent can be sustained, although each separate element in the design may be old, but it is whether what has been done in assembling the old elements in the new designs rose in these particular cases to the level of invention.’ “And in Strause Gas Iron Co. v. William M. Crane Co., 2 Cir., 235 F. 126 , 148 C.C.A. 620 , this court again said: ‘The test for invention is to be considered the same for designs as for mechanical patents; i. e., was the new combination within the range of the ordinary routine designer ?’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Faustmann

2. ““ * * * design patents stand on as high a plane as utility patents and require as high a degree of exercise of the inventive or original faculty.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blisscraft v. Rona Plastic Corp.