Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
395 F.3d 1364 · 2005
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 42 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology Inc (2006), Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2009)
33 federal appellate · 42 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Commercial success is relevant because the law presumes an idea would successfully have been brought to market sooner, in response to market forces, had the idea been obvious to persons skilled in the art.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... a court first considers the intrinsic evidence, starting with the language of the claims. Generally claim terms should be construed consistently with their ordinary and customary meanings, as determined by those of ordinary skill in the art. While in some cases there is a presumption that favors the ordinary meaning of a term, the court must first examine the specification to determine whether the patentee acted as his own lexicographer of a term that already has an ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art. When a patentee acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description. We have repeatedly emphasized that the statement in the specification must have sufficient clarity to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the inventor intended to redefine the claim term.”
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.