Andrews v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. ““It may be that the inventor did not know what the scientific principle was, or that, knowing it, he omitted, from accident or design, to set it forth. That does not vitiate the patent. He sets forth the process or mode of operation which ends in the result, and the means for working out the process or 'node of. operation. The principle referred to is only the why and the wherefore.' That is not required to be set forth.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Toch v. Zibell Damp Resisting Paint Co. · Petroleum Rectifying Co. of California v. Reward Oil Co.

2. ““It may be that the inventor did not know what the scientific principle was, or that, knowing it, ho omitted, from accident or design, to set it forth. That does not vitiate the patent. * * * An inventor may be ignorant of the scientific principle, or he may think he knows it, and yet be uncertain, or he may be confident as to what it is, and others may think differently. All this is immaterial, if by the specification the thing to be done is so set forth that it can be reproduced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. v. St. Louis Pulverizer Co.