American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.’s Empirical Analysis
72 F. 508 · 1896
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 1949 · most notably Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs (1949), Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co. (1932)
22 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 Cochrane v. Deener · Brown v. Piper · Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart · Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. · The Corn-Planter Patent
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In considering the question of the validity of a patent on its face, the court may take judicial knowledge of facts of common and general knowledge, tending to show that the device or process patented is old, or lacking in invention, and that the court may refresh and strengthen its recollection and impression of what facts were of common and general knowledge at the time of the application for the patent by reference to any printed source of general information which is known to the court to be reliable, and to have been published prior to the application for the patent. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 38 , 23 L. Ed. 200 . The presumption from the issuance of the patent is that it involves both novelty and invention. The effect of dismissing the bill upon demurrer is to deny to the complainant the right to adduce evidence to support that presumption. Therefore, the court must be able, from the statements on the face of the patent, and from the common and general knowledge already referred to, to say that the want of novelty and invention is so palpable that it is impossible that evidence of any kind could show the fact to be otherwise. Hence it must follow that, if the court has any doubt whatever with reference to the novelty or invention of that which is patented, it must overrule the demurrer, and give the complainant an opportunity, by proof, to support and justify the action of the patent office.” American Fiber-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508 , 18 C. C. A. 662”
5 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.