← 598 F.3d 1336 - Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

598 F.3d 1336 · 2010

Citation profile

240

cited by 240 later decisions

January 2025

most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 67 district ·

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 122 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 282

Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Lorillard v. Pons · United States v. Menasche · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Phillips v. AWH Corp.

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

“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. · Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
“In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp. · Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
“[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. · Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Chinese University of Hong Kong

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.