Town v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Radio Corporation of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories · Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons · Temco Electric Motor Co v. Apco Mfg Co · National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co. · Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. International Plastic Corp.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It would seem that defendant’s position in denying that the device is patentable is further weakened by the fact that he filed an application for a patent on his own device — the accused device — which is practically identical in shape, material and construction, and which performs the same function in the same manner.””
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.