In re Hammond’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.2d 760 · 1930
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1952
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 Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart · Mastoras v. Hildreth · In re Ballman · In re Gardner · 39 App. D.C. 447 - In re Perlman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The function or movement of a device is not patentable, but the mechanism which produces such movement may be patentable. Mastoras v. Hil-dreth, 9 Cir., 263 F. 571 , 576. In In re Gardner, 32 App.D.C. 249 , it was held that a patent cannot issue for a result sought to be accomplished by an inventor of a machine, but a patent will issue only for the mechanical means or instrumentality by which that result is obtained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Ray
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.