Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Peeler v. Miller

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 10, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 76-503Published

1ConcurrenceMiller, Judge

I agree that appellee reduced the invention to practice and that, through the acts of his assignee, he suppressed the invention. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), a second inventor is not entitled to a patent unless the first inventor abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention. In an interference the burden of proving abandonment, suppression, or concealment falls on the second inventor, regardless of who filed first. Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277, 1279 (CCPA 1974).

This court has consistently held that suppression or concealment, to amount to forfeiture of the right to a patent in favor of a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Young v. DworkinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  2. Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. FennCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Adrian P. Brokaw v. Charles B. VogelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  4. Robert C. Woofter v. Vernon E. CarlsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
  5. In re McKellinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API