Shindelar v. Holdeman’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 1337 · 1980
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2009
5 federal appellate ·
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 Young v. Dworkin · Peeler v. Miller · Horwath v. Lee · Clauss v. Foulke · Wilson v. Goldmark
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each case involving the issue of suppression or concealment must be considered on its own particular set of facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“of the invention under section 102(g) that barred the earlier but suppressing inventor from obtaining priority in an interference proceeding over the later inventor. 104 The facts in Peeler are virtually identical to those here. There, as here, approximately four years elapsed between the reduction to practice and the filing of the patent application, and”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulik v. Rizkalla“there is no reasonable basis on which to differentiate this case from Peeler v. Miller, and the same result is therefore compelled, i.e., a holding of suppression as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.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.