De Forest v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.2d 826 · 1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1975
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co. · 21 App. D.C. 88 - Gallagher v. Hastings · 14 App. D.C. 137 - Winslow v. Austin · Larson v. Crowther · Gowen v. Arnold
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * When an employee claims to have made an invention, which is within the scope of his employment, and made while so employed during the working hours for which he is receiving pay, his-claim that he, and not the employer, independently and separately made the invention, is to be examined with great care, and will not be accepted, unless the proof clearly shows that he and not the employer, was the first inventor of the subject-matter. If he is to be regarded as the inventor, he must show that the invention was not made in pursuance to the guidance and instructions .of the employer. [Here follows the citation of authorities.] “The temptation of the employee to gain knowledge while working under the skilled, guidance of another and then to seek to capitalize such knowledge by betraying his trust and seeking a patent for himself is always great and too. frequently occurs. The likelihood of such conduct on the part of an employee is always increased where the knowledge of the subject-matter is confined to only a few people. To place no burden of proof upon the employee and the whole burden upon the employer, under such circumstances as are at bar, would be inequitable, and would have the tendency toward increasing the likelihood of bad faith on the part of the employee rather than to encourage loyalty and honest service.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Owens v. Sponable
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.