Elan Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.3d 1051 · 2003
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 16 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. · Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. · Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Ben Venue Laboratories Inc · Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc. (Formerly Known as Chemque Canada, Ltd.) and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants-Cross · PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the quantity of experimentation; (2) the amount of direction or guidance present; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the allegedly anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled that prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) must sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it. Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication’s description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention. Accordingly, even if the claimed invention is disclosed in a printed publication, that disclosure will not suffice as prior art if it is not enabling. It is not, however, necessary that an invention disclosed in a publication shall have actually been made in order to satisfy the enablement requirement.”
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.