California Electrical Works v. Finck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““The sale of the patented articles by a territorial assignee within his own territory does not confer upon the purchaser of such articles the right to carry the same into the territory of another assignee, and there sell then) in the usual course of trade, without the consent or license of the latter assignee. Although the question has never been authoritatively settled by any decision of the supreme court of the United States, it has frequently been held in the circuit courts that where one purchases a patented article from the owner of the patent right for a certain territory, lie has no right to sell the same in the course of trade, in a territory for which another owns the exclusive territorial rights. Hatch v. Adams, 22 Fed. 436 ; Hatch v. Hall, Id. 438 , 30 Fed. 613 ; Folding-Bed Co. v. Keeler, 37 Fed. 693 , 41 Fed. 51 ; Sheldon Axle Co. v. Standard Axle Works, 37 Fed. 789 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. Vaughan

2. “Whatever, therefore, may be the rule when patentees subdivide territorially their patents, as to the exclusive right to make or to sell within a limited territory, we hold that in the class of machines or implements we have described, when they are once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on their use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee or his assignees or licensees.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co.