Von Schmidt v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis
80 F. 121 · 1897
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1933
4 federal appellate · 3 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 Loom Company v. Higgins · Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. · Railway Company v. Sayles · Reckendorfer v. Faber · Hailes v. Van Wormer
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By section 4888 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3383], It is provided that every inventor, when making his application for a patent, :shall file in the patent office a written description of his invention; and, if the application be for a machine, he is required to explain the principle thereof, and the best mode in which he has contemplated applying the principle, so as to distinguish it from other inventions. But he is not .necessarily limited to the one mode shown. The pioneer inventor is entitled to a generic claim, under which will be included every species included within the genus. In addition to such generic claim, he may include in the same application specific claims for one or more of the species”—citing numerous authorities,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““As against the defense of anticipation, it is well settled that the patentee may show, if he can, the fact of invention by drawings, sketches, models, or any other competent proof” — citing Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 594 , 26 L. Ed. 1177 ; Bates v. Coe. 98 U. S. 84 , 25 L. Ed. 68 ; Smith v. Vulcanite Co., 92, U. S. 486, 28 L. Ed. 052 . Apparatus v. Woerle (C. C.) 29 Fed. 449 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A dredge boat and oscillating section of a conduit discharge flexibly joined to a nonoscillating section, to allow said boat to feed forward, and said oscillating section to swing upon the flexible joint connecting said oscillating and nonoscillating sections.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.