Mitchell v. Hawley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 14 district · 17 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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Patentees acquire by their letters patent the exclusive right to make and use their patented inventions, and to vend to others to be used, for the period of time specified in the patent; but when they have made one or more of the things patented, and have vended the same to others to be used, they have parted to that extent with their exclusive right, as they are never entitled to but one royalty for a patented machine, and consequently a patentee, when he has himself constructed a machine and sold it without any conditions, or authorized another to construct, sell, and deliver it, or to construct, use, and operate it, without any conditions, and the consideration has been paid to him for the thing patented, the rule is well established that the patentee must be understood to have parted to that extent with all his exclusive right, and that he ceases to have any interest whatever in the patented machine so sold and delivered or authorized to be constructed and operated. Where such circumstances appear, the owner of the machine, whether he built it or purchased it, if he has also acquired the right to use and operate it during the lifetime of the patent, may continue to use it until it is worn out, in spite of any and every extension subsequently obtained by the patentee or his assigns.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co. · Jackson v. Vaughan

2. “[T]he purchaser of the [patented] machine ... does not acquire any right to construct another machine either for his own use or to be vended to another.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. · 133 S. Ct. 1761 - Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

3. “Suppose tlie rule was otherwise, and that the real owner, in order to defeat the title of 1lee purchaser. must show that the1 latter- knew what the facts were; the court would still he of the opinion that the decree ought to be affirmed. as the terms of the license which the; seller gave; to the purchasers were suilieient to put them upon inquiry; and it is quite obvious that tlie means of knowleelge were at hand, and that, if they hael made the least inquiry. they would have ascertained that their grantor could not give them any title to use the machines beyond the period of fourteen years from the date of the original letters patent, as he was only a. licensee, and never had any power to sell a machine, so as to withdraw it indefinitely from the operation of the franchise secured by the patent. 10 Wall. 550 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. International Pavement Co. v. Richardson