Smithkline Beecham v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.3d 21 · 2000
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2001), Huminski v. Corsones (2004)
15 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · Mazer v. Stein · Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. · Gomez v. Dade County School Board
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“created a work at [the other's] request and handed it over, intending that [the other] copy and distribute it.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although commercial labeling is clearly copyrightable, ... it has been recognized that the danger lurking in copyright protection for labels is that the tail threatens to wag the dog — proprietors at times seize on copyright protection for the label in order to leverage their thin copyright protection over the text ... on the label into a monopoly on the typically uncopyrightable product to which it is attached. Used in that fashion, the copyright serves primarily as a means of harassing competitors, and thus fails nine times out of ten. Here[,] although the labeling at issue is more creative than that in the “familiar” commercial labeling cases, SmithKline’s copyright claim is arguably weaker than even the typical commercial labeling case, because the copyrighted text was submitted to obtain FDA approval and consequent market exclusivity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are thus faced with a conflict between two statutes. The Hatch-Wax-man Amendments require generic drug producers to use labeling that will infringe upon copyrights in labels of pioneer drugs. The Copyright Act seems to prohibit such copying. However, applying the familiar canon that, where two laws are in conflict, courts should adopt the interpretation that preserves the principal purposes of each, see, e.g., Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., 182 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“Unless Congress clearly indicates which of two statutes is to prevail in event of conflict, our responsibility is to interpret and apply them ‘in a way that preserves the purposes of both and fosters harmony between them.’ ” (quoting Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1498, 1507 (10th Cir.1995))), the conflict is less stark and more easily resolved than it might seem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.