Hughes Tool Co. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “First, in Brown the buttons-which protrude from the [main body of the bit, and strike and cut the] material in which the drilling is occurring-are of steel, and are a part of main body of the bit body, ... while in Kelly [the Hughes patent] the cutting instruments are tungsten carbide inserts implanted in the main body. It is readily seen that Kelly’s inserts and Brown’s buttons are very similar in structure, shape, and size. The differences between the two are in material used and in the mechanical concept of an implanted cutting instrument versus the cutting instrument fabricated as part of the body of the bit. The substitution of one material for another or the substitution of mechanical equivalents is not patentable. The District Court found that the use of inserts of hard material-such as hardened steel, diamonds and tungsten carbide-implanted in the body of a drill for doing the actual cutting is not new and has been known in the percussion bit art (and other arts as well) for many years. Considering the purposes of the buttons and the inserts-both employed as cutting instruments-the qualities of their combination with the other ingredients, the functions they are intended to perform, and whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of the two ingredients, 3 it is clear that the two are mechanical equivalents.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 499 F. Supp. 935 - Reed Tool Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.

2. “[The prior-art Brown patent] is, in my judgment, distinguished from the patent in suit in only one material respect. In Brown, the buttons are of steel and are a part of the bit body. In the patent in suit, the substitution is made of replacing the steel buttons with tungsten carbide inserts. As noted above, the use of tungsten carbide, diamond, or other very hard material as inserts for doing the actual cutting is not new and has been known in this and in other arts for years.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 499 F. Supp. 935 - Reed Tool Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.