Abbott Laboratories v. Dey L.P.’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.3d 1097 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Advanced Display Systems Inc Bao Gang Wu v. Kent State University Kent Research Corporation Kent Display Systems Inc · Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“insufficient to render particular arguments made during prosecution of [one of the patents] equally applicable to the claims” of the other patent). Moreover, even if we had found the file history of the '120 patent to be relevant to this litigation, the statements made by Lilly and Dr. Hartauer in that prosecution do not contradict the evidence presented at trial. Lilly referred to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“applications [had] no formal relationship and were presented to the patent office as patentably distinct inventions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“not filed as a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.