Erastus Corning and John Winslow v. Peter a Burden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 federal appellate · 44 district · 15 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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A process, eo nomine, is not made the subject of a patent in our act of Congress. It is included under the general term ‘useful art.’ An art may require one or more processes or machines, in order to produce a certain result or manufacture. The term ‘machine’ includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform .some function and produce a certain effect or result. But where the result or effect is produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, methods, or operations are called ‘processes.’ A new process is usually the result of discovery; a machine of invention. The arts of tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India- rubber, smelting ores, and numerous others,- are usually carried on by processes as distinguished from machines. * * * It is for the discovery or invention of some practical method or meand of producing a beneficial result or effect that a patent is granted, and not for the result or effect itself. It is when the term ‘process’ is used to represent the means or method of producing a result that it is patentable, and it will include all methods or means which are not effected by mechanism or mechanical combinations. * * * But it is well settled that a man cannot have a patent for the function or abstract effect of a machine, but only for the machine which produces it.””

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Tarczyhornoch · Pratt v. Thompson & Taylor Spice Co.

2. ““It is evident that a patent, thus issued after an inquisition or examination, made by skillful and sworn publie officers, appointed for the purpose of protecting the publie against false claims or useless inventions, is entitled to much more respect, as evidence of novelty and utility, than .those formerly issued without any such investigation.. Consequently, such a patent may be, and generally is, received as prima facie evidence of tne truth of the facts asserted in it. And in eases where the evidence is nicely balanced, it may have weight with a jury in making up their decision as to the plaintiff’s right; and, if so, it is not easy to perceive why the defendant who uses a patented machine should not have the benefit of a like presumption in his favor, arising from a like investigation of the originality of his invention, and the j udgment of the public officers, that his machine is new, and not an infringement of the patent previously granted to the plaintiff. It shows, at least, that the defendant has acted in good faith, and is not a wanton infringer of the plaintiffs rights, and ought not, therefore, to be subjected to the same stringent and harsh rule of damages which might be justly inflicted on a mere pirate. It is true the mere question of originality or infringement generally turns on the testimony of the witnesses produced on the trial; but, if the plaintiff’s patent in a doubtful case may have some weight in turning the scale in his favor, it is but just that t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butler v. Burgh Plow Co.

3. ““In cases where the evidence is nicely balanced, it [the defendant’s patent] may have weight with the jury in making up their decision as to the plaintiff’s rights; and, if so, it is not easy to perceive why the defendant, who uses a patented machine, should not have the benefit of a like presumption in bis favor, arising from a like investigation of the originality of his invention, and the judgment of the proper officers, that his invention is new, and not an infringement of the patent granted to the plaintiff.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. Leicester Mills Co.