Sweetland v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““The very failure to bring about interference with the Sweetland claims here in suit after Cole had become fully advised thereof through the grant of the patents is the strongest evidence that he and his counsel did not deem his alleged invention to be an anticipation of those claims. In this view, we fully concur. “The essence of the Sweetland device is a multiple pad filter, that is, one in which the oil does not go through all of the filter pads, but through only one of them and then out so that, despite the slow rate, a sufficient quantity is thus filtered. ****** “It is clear that in the Cole device the oil goes through each one of the conical filter elements. * * * In our judgment, Cole’s purely paper device is at the best but cumulative evidence to the alleged anticipations considered in the opinion heretofore announced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dooley Improvements, Inc. v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

2. “must be determined by the normal meaning of the words in which such limitations are expressed, as those words are used in connection with the art involved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simpson v. Neracher Simpson v. Patterson Simpson v. Maurer. Maurer v. Simpson