Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 F.3d 1297 - Biovail Corporation International Biovail Laboratoriesinc Galephar Pr Inc Ltd v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc

Biovail Corporation International Biovail Laboratoriesinc Galephar Pr Inc Ltd v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc’s Empirical Analysis

239 F.3d 1297 · 2001

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
April 2025
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Alloc Inc Nv Ab v. International Trade Commission (2003), Conoco Inc Conoco Specialty Products Inc v. Energy & Environmental International Lc B N (2006)

14 federal appellate · 5 district ·

590200120102020decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e review both the specification and the applicable prosecution history to determine whether the patentee defined claim terminology in a manner inconsistent with its ordinary meaning.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It shall be an act of infringement to submit an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [i.e., an ANDA] ... for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, ... if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug ... claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.