Avtec Systems, Inc. v. Peiffer’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 568 · 1994
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States ex rel. Berge v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (1997), Iae Incorporated v. D Shaver
13 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Mazer v. Stein
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“while an implied license may fail to vest a proprietary interest in the licensee that is enforceable against other licensees, it may provide a defense ... to the counterclaim”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Avtec offers no authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that the alleged "owner" of a trade secret could maintain the secrecy of material that is subject under federal law to publication at the will of another. We do not believe that a nonexclusive use license in copyrighted material can support the reasonable expectation or right of secrecy necessary to predicate a claim that the identical material is a trade secret protectable under Virginia law.”
2 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.