Le Roy v. Tatham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[A] principle is not patentable. A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Diamond v. Diehr · American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Denning Wire & Fence Co.

2. ““What we claim as our invention is the combination of the following parts, to wit, the core and bridge or guide piece, the camber, and the die, when used to form pipes of metal under heat and pressure in the manner set forth, or in any other manner substantially the same.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Denning Wire & Fence Co. · In re Bergy

3. “He (the patentee) says that the same apparatus, stated in this last claim, has been long in use, and applied, if not to chairs,' at least in other machines, to purposes of a similar nature. If this be so, then the invention is not new, but at most is an old invention or apparatus or machinery applied to a new purpose. Now, I take it to be clear, that a machine or apparatus or other mechanical contrivance, in order to give the party a claim to a patent therefor, must in itself be substantially new. If it is old and well known, and applied only to a new purpose, that does not make it patentable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens