Purdue Pharma Lp Pf Sa v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 27 district ·

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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]nformation is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpat-entable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Digital Control v. The Charles MacHine Works (Also Known as Ditchwitch) · 81 Fed. Cl. 514 - Honeywell International Inc. v. United States

2. “information that is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and that (1) establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima fa-cie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) ... refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpa-tentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patenta-bility.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V. · 530 F. Supp. 2d 554 - In Re OxyContin Antitrust Litigation

3. “Applicants for patents have a duty to prosecute patents in the PTO with candor and good faith, including a duty to disclose information known to the applicants to be material to patentability. A breach of this duty may constitute inequitable conduct, which can arise from an affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent to deceive or mislead the PTO. A party asserting that a patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct must prove materiality and intent by clear and convincing evidence. Once threshold findings of materiality and intent are established, the trial court must weigh them to determine whether the equities warrant a conclusion that inequitable conduct occurred. This requires a careful balancing: when the misrepresentation or withheld information is highly material, a lesser quantum of proof is needed to establish the requisite intent. In contrast, the less material the information, the greater the proof must be.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Emp'rs Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. · Aventis Pharma s.a. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.