Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
97 U.S. 126 · 1877
Citation profile
298 federal appellate · 115 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 835 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters (1929), Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. (1898)
298 federal appellate · 115 district · 12 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Rubber Company v. Goodyear · Mowry v. Whitney · Joseph Shaw v. Joseph Cooper · Cawood Patent Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Turrill
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 835 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The use of an invention by the inventor himself, or of any other person under his direction, by way of experiment, and in order to bring the invention to perfection, has never been regarded as [a public] use.”
41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The subject, as a whole, Is surrounded with many difficulties, which the courts have not yet succeeded in overcoming. But one thing may be affirmed with reasonable confidence: That, if an infringer of a patent has realized no profit from the use of the invention, he cannot be called upon to respond for profits. The patentee, in such case, is left to his remedy for damages. * * # it may be added that, where no profits are shown to have accrued, a court of equity cannot give a decree for profits, by way of damages, or as a punishment for the Infringement. Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 559 [ 14 L. Ed. 809 ].””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is sometimes said that an inventor acquires an undue advantage over the public by delaying to take out a patent, inasmuch as he thereby preserves the monopoly to himself for a longer period than is allowed by the policy of the law; but this cannot be said with justice when the delay is occasioned by a bona fide effort to bring his invention to perfection, or to ascertain whether it will answer the purpose intended. His monopoly only continues for the allotted period, in any event; and it is the interest of the public, as well as himself, that the invention should be perfect and properly tested, before a patent is granted for it. Any attempt to use it for a profit, and not by way of experiment, for a longer period than two years before the application, would deprive the inventor of his right to a patent.”
4 later decisions 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.