Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 U.S. 340 - Bloomer v. Millinger

Bloomer v. Millinger’s Empirical Analysis

68 U.S. 340 · 1863

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. (1894), Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. (1912)

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

1301863187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 James Wilson v. Lewis Rousseau

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

  1. ““When the patented machine rightfully passes to the hands of the purchaser from the patentee, or from any other person by him authorized to convey it, the machine is no longer within the limits of the monopoly. * * * By a valid sale and purchase, the patented machine becomes the private individual property of the purchaser, and is no longer protected by the laws of the United States. * * * ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Patentees acquire the exclusive right to make and use, and vend to others to be used, their patented inventions for the period of time specified in the patent; but when they have made and vended to others to be used one or more of the things patented, to that extent they have parted with their exclusive right. They are entitled to but one royalty for a patented machine, and consequently, when a patentee has himself 'constructed the machine and sold it, or authorized another to construct and sell it, or to construct and use and operate it, and the consideration has been paid to him for the right, he has then to that extent parted with his monopoly, and ceased to have, any interest whatever in the machine so sold or so authorized to be constructed and; operated.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.