Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories Inc Mylan Pharmceuticals Inc’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.3d 1286 · 2006
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), Wyers v. Master Lock Co. (2010)
37 federal appellate · 13 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 Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · In re Gartside · Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. · Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Ching-Rong Wang · In re Dembiczak
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is also a question of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.”
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.