Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 256
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co · Richard M. Perlman and Perlman Marketplace Investors v. Samuel Zell · Meyers v. Asics Corp. · Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Id. On January 19, 2011, the PTO denied Ferring's request for reexamination of the '203 patent. Id. On May 24, 2011, Ferring's U.S. patent application 12/487,116 issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,947,654 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Id. On June 18, 2009, Ferring filed U.S. patent application 12/487,116 as a continuation of its previously filed U.S. patent application 10/513,437. Id. at 712 . On August 25, 2009, Dr. Fein's patent application 12/173/074 issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,579,321 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Id. On October 12, 2010, Adriana Burgy of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., counsel of record for Ferring, filed a request for reexamination of Dr. Fein's '203 patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (”
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.