Peeler v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.2d 647 · 1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Fujikawa v. Wattanasin (1996), Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2001)
3 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Towne v. Eisner · J. Gordon Turnbull, Inc. v. Commissioner · Mason v. Hepburn · Joshua C. Conner v. George G. Joris · Patterson v. Hauck
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“535 F.2d at 653, 190 USPQ at 122 (emphasis in original). It also stated: 105 In our opinion, a four-year delay from the time an inventor is satisfied with his invention and completes his work on it and the time his assignee-employer files a patent application is, prima facie, unreasonably long in an interference with a party who filed first.... The record, however, contains nothing to show that the delay was other than fully within Monsanto's control at all times. 106 535 F.2d at 654, 190 USPQ at 122-23. 107 The court further pointed out that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulik v. Rizkalla“[I]n the present case we find the two year and five month period between Shindelar’s reduction to practice and the filing of his application to be, prima facie, an “unreasonable” period which has not been overcome by the mere showing that the workload of [the patent attorney] * * prevented him from filing the application earlier. Accordingly, we find that Shindelar suppressed or concealed the invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (g) and therefore has lost his right to a patent as against Holdeman et al.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“proof of specific intent to suppress is not necessary where the time between actual reduction to practice and filing is unreasonable. This unreasonable delay may raise an inference of intent to suppress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulik v. Rizkalla
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.