Adams v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 federal appellate · 27 district · 12 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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But, in tiio essential nature of things, when the patentee, or the person having his rights, sells a machine or instrument whose sole value is in its use, he receives the consideration for its use and he parts with the right to restrict that use. The article, in the language of the court, passes without the limit of the monopoly. That is to say, the patentee or his assignee having in the act of sale received all the royalty or consideration which he claims for the use of his invention in that particular machine or instrument, it is open to the use of the purchaser without further restriction on account of the monopoly of the patentees.””

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co. · Montross v. Mabie

2. ““When the patented machine light fully passes to the hands of the purchaser from the patentee, or from any other person by him authorized to convey it, the machine is no longer within the limits of the monopoly. According to the decisions of this court in the cases before mentioned, it then passes outside of the monopoly, and Is no longer under the peculiar protection granted to patented articles. By a valid sale and purchase, the patented machine becomes the private individual property of the purchaser, and is no longer protected by tbe laws of tbe United States, but by tbe laws of tbe state in wbicb it is situated. Hence it is obvious that if a person legally acquires a title to that wbicb is tbe subject of letters patent, be may continue to use it until it is worn out, or be may repair it or improve upon it, as be pleases, in tbe same manner as if dealing with property of any other bind.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boesch v. Graff · Jackson v. Vaughan

3. ““It seems to us that, although the right of Lockhart & Seelye to manufacture, to sell and to use these coffin lids was limited to the circle of 10 miles around Boston, that a purchaser from them of a single coffin acquired the right to use that coffin for the purpose for which all coffins are used; that, so far as the use of it was concerned, the patentee had received his consideration, and it was no longer within the monopoly of the patent. It would be to ingraft a limitation upon the right of use- not contemplated by the statute, nor within the reason of the contract to say that it could only be used within the 10-mile circle.” )”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. California Electrical Works v. Finck · Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corp. v. United Aircraft Engineering Corp.