Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.3d 1306 · 2001
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc. · Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd Smc Corporation Smc Pneumatics Inc · Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent.... A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after— (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“congressional reports make clear that the principal purpose of [§ 271(g) ] was to prevent a patent owner’s competitors from avoiding the patent by producing products outside the United States and then importing them.”
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.