Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.3d 1303 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 12 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 355 (§ 505 of the All Kids Act) · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(bb) with respect to the first applicant or any other applicant (which other applicant has received tentative approval), the date that is 75 days after the date as of which, as to each of the patents with respect to which the first applicant submitted and lawfully maintained a certification qualifying the first applicant for the 180-day exclusivity period under subparagraph (B)(iv), at least 1 of the following has occurred: (AA) In an infringement action brought against that applicant with respect to the patent or in a declaratory judgment action brought by that applicant with respect to the patent, a court enters a final decision from which no appeal (other than a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari) has been or can be taken that the patent is invalid or not infringed. (BB) In an infringement action or a declaratory judgment action described in subitem (AA), a court signs a settlement order or consent decree that enters a final judgment that includes a finding that the patent is invalid or not infringed. (CC) The patent information submitted under subsection (b) or (c) of this section [§ 355] is withdrawn by the holder of the application approved under subsection (b) of this section [the NDA].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“reward ... generic[ ] [manufacturers] that stick out their necks (at the potential cost of a patent infringement suit) by claiming that patent law does not extend the brand maker's monopoly as long as the brand maker has asserted,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“during which the FDA may not approve for sale any competing generic version of the drug at issue.”
2 later decisions 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.