In re May’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 1082 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Ben Venue Laboratories Inc (2001), In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags (1984)
9 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on In re Sinex · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc. · In re Rinehart · In re De Montmollin · In re Tomlinson
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A method of affecting analgesic and morphine antagonistic activity without producing physical dependence in animals which comprises administering to an animal an effective dosage of an acid addition salt of the levo isomer of a compound of the structure where R is a lower alkyl group and R 1 is hydrogen or a lower alkyl group. 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said compound is -(-)-5,9-diethyl-2’hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said compound is (-)-5-methyl-2’-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said compound is (-)-5-ethyl-2’-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said compound is -(-)-5-propyl-9-methyl-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 6. The method of claim 1 wherein said salt is the hydrochloride. 7. The method of claim 6 wherein said compound is -(-)-5,9-diethyl-2’hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 8. The method of claim 6 wherein said compound is (-)-5-methyl-2’-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 9. The method of claim 6 wherein said compound is (-)-5-ethyl-2’-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 10. The method of claim 6 wherein said compound is -(-)-5-propyl-9-methyl-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzomorphan. 11. A pharmaceutical composition for internal administration having an analgesic, non-addictive, morphine-antagonistic effect which comprises a pharmaceutical carrier and an effective amount of an acid addition salt of — ( -)-5,9-diethyl-2’-hydroxy-2-methyl-6,7-benzo-morp”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Since the only active ingredient in the composition claims is the compound, we will treat these claims as if they were compound claims”). Plaintiff has requested the Court to decide that Claim 2 of the '671 patent is valid as a matter of law. The Court will not go so far at this point. Danbury pointed out that its admission as to the novelty and nonobviousness of atenolol was limited to the context of the summary judgment motion, and therefore the Court will not extend its effect any further. 34 .Danbury attempts to qualify this admission by noting that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the novelty of an optical isomer is not negated by the prior art disclosure of its racemate.”
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.