Joseph Shaw v. Joseph Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
32 U.S. 292 · 1833
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. (1877)
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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 Abraham Pennock v. Adam Dialogue · Planing-Machine Company v. Keith
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whatever may be the intention of the inventor, if he suffers his invention to go into public use through any means whatsoever, without an immediate assertion of his right he is not entitled to a patent; nor will a patent obtained under such circumstances protect his right.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Yigilance is necessary to entitle an individual to the privileges secured under tlio patent law. It is not enough that he should show his right by invention, but he must secure it in the mode required by law, and if the invention, through fraudulent means, should be made known to the public, he should assert his right immediately and take the necessary steps to legalize it. The patent law was designed for the public benefit, as well as for the benefit of inventors. * * * No matter by what means an invention may be communicated to the public before a patent is obtained, any acquiescence in the public use by an inventor will be an abandonment of his right. If the right were asserted by him who fraudulently obtained it, perhaps no lapse of time could give it validity. But the public stand in an entirely different relation to the inventor. The invention passes into the possession of innocent persons, who have no knowledge of the fraud, and at a considerable expense, perhaps, they appropriate it to their own use. A strict construction of tho act, as it regards the public use of an invention before it is patented, is not only required by its letter and spirit, but also by sound pdlicy. * ' * * The doctrine of presumed acquiescence, where tho public use is known or might be known to the inventor, is the only safe rule which can be adopted on this subject. * * * Whatever may be the intention of the inventor, if he suffers the invention to go into public use through any means whateve”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andrews v. Hovey““The Congress shall have power * * * to promote the progress of science and useful’ arts, by securing for limited times to authors- and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.””
1 later decision 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.