349 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As used in the ’355 Patent .. .the term “dosage form” comports with its broad stipulated definition. In the section entitled “Objects of the Invention,” the patent qualifies the term in numerous ways: “sustained-release dosage form,” “solid-oral dosage pharmaceutical form,” “drug delivery dosage form,” “controlled-release dosage form,” and, most notably, “an osmotic dosage form.” ’355 Patent, cols. 2-3. The examples in the written description also indicate that the invention encompasses more than one dosage form. Moreover, the patent re fers to both osmotic and non-osmotie dosage forms. Thus, in the examples cited by Mylan, the osmotic dosage form is merely a preferred embodiment ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.