Eames v. Godfrey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 2 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The patent ill controversy was for a combination of mechanical powers to effect a useful result, and such a patent differs essentially in its principles from one where the subject-matter is new. The law is well settled by repeated adjudications in this court and the circuit courts of the United States, that there is no infringement of a patent which claims mechanical powers in combination unless all tile parts have been substantially used. The use of a part less than the whole is no infringement.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cortis v. American Street Lamp & Supply Co. · Osgood Panel & Veneer Co. v. Osgood

2. ““The end in view is. proposed to be accomplished by the union of all, arranged and combined together in the manner described. The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third, which is substantially different in form or in the manner of its arrangement and connection with the others, is, therefore, not the thing patented. It is not the same combination if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rowell v. Lindsay · Acme Truck & Tool Co. v. Meredith