Also known as: hiatuses · gap · lapse
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A gap between the time a parent application ceases to be pending by abandonment or issuance and the time a continuing application is filed. The gap breaks the chain of continuity so that later applications are not entitled to the effective filing date of the parent application.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Inventor filed a continuation application six weeks after the parent issued as a patent. The hiatus between issuance and the new filing broke continuity. The continuation therefore could not claim the parent's filing date.
Applicant abandoned the parent application on day one. The continuation was filed on day forty-five. Because the hiatus ended pendency, the later application lost entitlement to the parent's date.
The parent application issued as a patent. No continuation was filed until after the two-month period. The resulting hiatus prevented the continuation from relating back to the parent's filing date.
After the parent was abandoned the applicant waited three months to file a continuation. The hiatus destroyed the chain of continuity. Priority was measured from the continuation's own filing date.
The parent ceased to be pending upon issuance. A continuation filed the next quarter created a hiatus. The applicant could not rely on the parent's earlier effective date.
Applicant allowed the parent to issue and then filed a continuation two months later. The hiatus between issuance and filing severed continuity. Later claims therefore received only the continuation's filing date.
A hiatus breaks continuity between a parent application and a later continuing application. Later applications therefore lose the benefit of the parent's filing date. The gap is measured from the moment the parent ceases to be pending until the continuing application is filed.
Supporting sources
An offeree's power of acceptance ends when a reasonable time passes without acceptance. The offer itself may state a deadline or the circumstances may imply one. Once that time expires the offeree can no longer form a contract by accepting.
…361 U. S. 199, 206 (1960). Interrogation still takes place in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms. A valuable source of information about present police practices, however, may be found in various police manuals and…
…v. Tyson , is, as Mr. Justice Holmes said, "an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct." In disapproving that doctrine we do not hold unconstitutional § 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any…
…were qualified to work with a new process that requires high-school-level reading and mathematical skills); Cyert & Mowery 68 (gap between wages of high school dropouts and better trained workers increasing); U. S. Dept. of Labor 41 (1981) (job openings for dropouts declining over time). There is evidence that…
…opinions sometimes lack helpful clarity. The presumed educational effect of judicial opinions is also reduced by the long time
…from the Federal Government. If MHDC proved unsuccessful in securing either, both the lease and the contract of sale would
Consent to enter land for a stated period ends automatically when that period expires. The actor who remains after the period has no privilege and may be treated as a trespasser. Reasonable egress remains allowed but further presence does not.
Unless the will provides otherwise the devise lapses. The property then passes under the residuary clause or by intestacy. The revocation creates a gap that prevents the trust from receiving the property at death.
A trial court acts as gatekeeper and may exclude an opinion when the data do not support the conclusion offered. The gap between the studies and the expert's claim renders the testimony unreliable. Review on appeal is limited to abuse of discretion.
When substantial time passes after the defendant's conduct the duty to prevent harm may shift to a third person. The later failure of that third person then becomes a superseding cause. The original actor is no longer liable for the resulting harm.