Thomas E. Pickering v. Orval Holman, Thomas E. Pickering v. Orval Holman’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 403 · 1972
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp. (1974), Popeil Bros. v. Schick Electric, Inc. (1975)
21 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. · Smith Griggs Manuf'G Co v. Sprague · Abraham Pennock v. Adam Dialogue · Hall v. Macneale · Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] bona fide experimental use involves no commercial exploitation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Anything that is printed and made accessible to any part of the public is a printed publication. 1 Deller’s Walker on Patents § 60 at 273 (2 ed.). Confidential documents are not publications. Id. The key is disclosure by way of a medium capable of providing wide public access, in re Tenney (1958) 254 F.2d 619 , 626, 45 CCPA 894, not commercial explotation." Pickering v. Holman, 459 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless- * * * (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, . . .”
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.