Peck v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
103 U.S. 660 · 1880
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably C. W. Cornell v. F. E. Coyne (1904), McCormick Harvesting Mach Co v. C Aultman Co Same (1898)
9 federal appellate · 4 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.
Relationships
Relies on Moffitt v. Garr
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But if Ms [the patentee’s] title to the invention is disputed, and adjudged against him, it would still seem that the effect of such a decision should he as fatal to his original patent as to his right to a reissue.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it has been uniformly held that if a reissue is granted, the patentee has no rights except such as grow out of the reissued patent. He has none Under the original. That is extinguished. . . . Nó damages can be recovered for any acts of infringement committed prior to the reissue. ... It seems to us equally clear, that as. the law stood when that decision was made, ... a patent surrendered for reissue was cancelled in law as well when the application was rejected, as when it. was granted. The patentee was in the same situation as he would, have been if his original application for a patent had been rejected. ... Surrender of the patent was an abandonment of it, and. the applicant for reissue took upon himself the risk of getting a reissue or of losing all. A failure upon the merits, in a contest with other claimants, only gave additional force to the legal effect of the surrender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eby v. King“in case of a surrender and reissue, ... the pending suits fall with the surrender. A surrender of the patent to the Commissioner within the sense of the provision, means an act which, in judgment of law, extinguishes the patent. It is a legal cancellation of it, and hence can no more be the foundation for the assertion of a right after the surrender, than could an act of Congress which has been repealed. It has frequently been determined that suits pending, which rest upon an act of Congress, fall with the repeal of it. The reissue of the patent has no connection with or bearing upon antecedent suits; it has as to subsequent suits. The antecedent suits depend upon the patent existing at the time they were commenced, and unless it exists, and is in force at the time of trial and judgment, the suits fail.”
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.