Godfrey v. Eames’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 9 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A change in the specification as filed in the first instance, or the subsequent filing of a new one, whereby a patent is still sought for the substance of the invention as originally claimed, or a part of it', cannot in any wise affect the sufficiency of the original application, or the legal consequences fiowing from it. To produce that result, the new or amended specification must be intended to serve as the basis for a distinct and different invention, and one not contemplated by the specification as submitted at the outset.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. A. Klipstein & Co. · 821 F. Supp. 537 - Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc.

2. “are to be considered as parts of the same transaction, and both as constituting one continuous application, within the meaning of the law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Natural Alternatives Int'l, Inc. v. Iancu · Square Liner 360°, Inc. v. Chisum

3. “The question of the continuity of the application should have been submitted to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Technology Licensing Corp.