Merck & Co. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 162 · 1958
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Bell Intercontinental Corp. v. United States (1967), Green v. Comm'r (1984)
21 federal appellate · 2 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 Waterman v. Mackenzie · Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. · Special Equipment Co. v. Coe · Myers v. Comm'r · Allen v. Werner
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]wo employees of Sharp & Dohme in 1939 invented and reduced to practice certain chemical compounds colloquially called sulfa drugs * * *. Later a patent issued from the patent office. While the patent application was pending [the patentee] * * * entered into an agreement * * * granting * * * the exclusive right to make, use and sell * * * sulfadiazine * * *. Sulfadiazine was one of the claims in the generic patent * * * **#*!> * * * * * One generic patent was issued to the original patentee. But there were species claims and the species were separate inventions. A single patent may issue for two or more separate inventions as said in Special Equipment Co. v. Coe, 1945, 324 U.S. 370 . * * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One who owns a single invention patent may ‘sell’ its use in a particular territory or industry, United States v. Carruthers, 9 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 21 , or for one industrial use only, First National Bank of Princeton v. United States, D.C.D.N.J.1955, 136 F.Supp. 818, 823-824 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“16. 2-sulfonamido pyrimidine is one of the members of the class of chemical compounds known as sulfonamido pyrimidines and, as such, is one of the inventions described and claimed generically in said Letters Patent No. 2,407,966.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Merck & Co. v. Smith
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.