Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 1367 · 2003
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. (2005), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (2016)
13 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 287 · 35 U.S.C. § 295
Relies on Paul v. Davis · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Dewsnup v. Timm · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
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 30 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that section 1337 covers both articles that were “made” and articles that were “produced, processed, or mined.” While this language in section 1337 perhaps suggests a broader scope for section 1337 than for section 271(g), nothing in section 1337 suggests coverage of information, in addition to articles under section 271(g).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under these circumstances we think it is best to leave to Congress the task of expanding the statute if we are wrong in our interpretation. Congress is in a far better position to draw the lines that must be drawn if the product of intellectual processes rather than manufacturing processes are to be included within the statute.”
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.