Carlton v. Bokee’s Empirical Analysis
84 U.S. 463 · 1873
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1951 · most notably Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935), Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (1909)
16 federal appellate · 7 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.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We think it proper to reiterate our disapprobation of these ingenious attempts to expand a simple invention of a distinct device into an all-embracing claim, calculated by its wide generalizations and ambiguous language to discourage further invention in the same department of industry . . 3 These situations are to be distinguished from the case of the inventor who though he has an expectation of exploiting the patent has not yet arranged the necessary financing, or, for other reasons, has not yet been able to go into production. Mr. Justice Rutledge, dissenting. I would affirm the judgment. But I do not reach the interesting and important questions debated by the Court’s opinion and my dissenting brethren. They are of such a character that, in my opinion, they should not be determined in the absence of a record presenting facts and issues making this necessary. In this case the facts do not so clearly present the issues of “fencing”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think it proper to reiterate our disapprobation of these ingenious at tempts to expand a simple invention of a distinct device into an all-embracing claim, calculated by its wide generalizations and ambiguous language to discourage further invention in the same department of industry. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.