Ferring B.V. & Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
437 F.3d 1181 · 2006
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (2011), Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V. (2009)
18 federal appellate · 11 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. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Florida v. Tyvessel Tyvorus White
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A duty of candor and good faith toward the Patent and Trademark Office rests on the inventor, on each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application and on every other individual who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. All such individuals have a duty to disclose to the Office information they are aware of which is material to the examination of the application. Such information is material where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider it important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Both elements of a conclusion of inequitable conduct, intent and materiality, are questions of fact and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”). This interpretation of the standard is consistent with the general principle that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the absence of a credible explanation, intent to deceive is generally inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding a knowing failure to disclose material information”); Critikon, 120 F.3d at 1257 (stating that”
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.