Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s Empirical Analysis
349 F.3d 1373 · 2003
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 32 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2008), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC (2008)
27 federal appellate · 32 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Eli Lilly And Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. · Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission · Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would shock one’s sense of justice if an inventor could receive a patent upon a composition of matter, setting out at length in the specification the useful purposes of such composition, manufacture and sell it to the public, and then prevent the public from making any beneficial use of such product by securing patents upon each of the uses to which it may be adapted.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ 35 U.S.C. § 101 ] precludes more than one patent on the same invention .... Section 101, however, only prohibits a second patent on subject matter identical to an earlier patent. Thus, applicants can evade this statutory requirement by drafting claims that vary slightly from the earlier patent. [Therefore, courts have] fashioned a doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting (also known as “obviousness-type” double patenting) to prevent issuance of a patent on claims that are nearly identical to claims in an earlier patent. This doctrine prevents an applicant from extending patent protection for an invention beyond the statutory term by claiming a slight variant.”
3 later decisions 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.