Rubber Company v. Goodyear’s Empirical Analysis
76 U.S. 788 · 1869
Citation profile
143 federal appellate · 57 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 427 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. (1923), Barton v. Barbour (1881)
143 federal appellate · 57 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Hoyt v. Shelden, Ex'r of Thompson, and the Long Island Railroad Company
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 427 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Patentability may exist as to either, neither, or both, according to the fact of novelty, or the opposite.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is said that the bill contains no averment on this subject [notice], and that the record is equally barren of proof that any such notice was ever given to the defendants, except by the service of process, upon the filing of-the bill. Hence, it is insisted that,the master should have commenced his account at that time, instead of the earlier period of the beginning of the infringement. His refusal to do so was made the subject of an exception. The answer of the defendants is as silent upon the subject as the bill of the complainants. No such issue was made by the pleadings. It was too late for the defendants to raise the point before the master. They were concluded by their previous silence, and must be held to have waived it. It cannot be considered here.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A patent should be construed in a liberal spirit, to sustain the Just claims of the inventor. This’ principle is not to be carried so far as to exclude what is in it, or to interpolate anything which it does not contain. But liberality, rather than strictness, should prevail where the fate of the patent is involved, and the question to be decided is whether the inventor shall hold or lose the fruits of his genius and his labors.””
4 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.