Gould v. Rees’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Bona fide inventors of a combination are as much- entitled to equivalents as the inventors of other patentable improvements ; by which is meant timt a patentee in such a case may substitute another ingredient for any one of the ingredients of his invention if the ingredient substituted performs the same function as the one omitted and was well" known at the date of his patent as a proper substitute for the one omitted in the patented combination.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stockham v. Duncan · Dailey v. Lipman, Wolfe & Co.

2. “Where the defendant in constructing his machine omits entirely one of the ingredients of the plaintiffs combination without substituting any other, he does not infringe, and if he substitutes another in the place of the one omitted, which is new or which performs a substantially different function, or if it is old, but was not known at the date of the plaintiffs invention as a proper substitute for the omitted ingredient, then he does not infringe.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 754 F. Supp. 468 - Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Comm Scope Co.

3. “if the ingredient substituted was a new one, or performs a substantially different function, or was not known”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant