Russell v. Dodge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ That as a reissue could only be granted for the same invention embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to enlarge the scope of the Invention as originally claimed. The origina patent was not inoperative nor invalid from any defective or insufficient specification. The description given of the process claimed was, as stated by the patentee, full, clear, and exact, and the claim covered the specification; the one corresponded with the other. The change made in the old specification, by eliminating the necessity of using the fat liquor in a heated condition, and making in the new specification its uso in that condition a mere matter of convenience, and the insertion of an independent claim, for the use of fat liquor in the treatment of leather generally, operated to enlarge the character and scope of the invention.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kells v. McKenzie · Cochran v. Zimmerman

2. ““And, as a reissue could only be granted for the same invention embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to change the scope of the invention as originally claimed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haines v. Peck