Eli Lilly And Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
251 F.3d 955 · 2001
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 57 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 286 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp. (2002), Schering Corporation v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (2003)
47 federal appellate · 57 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc. · Conroy v. Reebok International, Ltd.
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 286 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. Second, the court determines whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. A later claim that is not patent-ably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, a moving party seeking to invalidate a patent at summary judgment must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he second part of the analysis compares what [the inventor] knew with what he disclosed-is the disclosure adequate to enable one skilled in the art to practice the best mode or, in other words, has the inventor ‘concealed’ his preferred mode from the ‘public’? Assessing the adequacy of the disclosure, as opposed to its necessity, is largely an objective inquiry that depends upon the scope of the claimed invention and the level of skill in the art.”
3 later decisions 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.