Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 606 F.2d 303 - In re Payne

In re Payne’s Empirical Analysis

606 F.2d 303 · 1979

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
April 2020
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB (1989), Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2009)

9 federal appellate · 7 district ·

220197919801990200020102020decided

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. § 103

Relies on In re Sinex · Swain v. Mallory · In re Gruschwitz · Application of Eric D. Brown · In re Samour

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

  1. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “However, where an applicant tests less than all cited compounds, the test must be sufficient to permit a conclusion respecting the relative effectiveness of applicant's claimed compounds and the compounds of the closest prior art.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In view of the close structural similarity between the claimed compounds and [the prior art compound], and the fact that the latter is disclosed as possessing antimicrobial activity, we believe that one skilled in the art would have been, prima facie, motivated to make the claimed compounds in the expectation that they, too, would possess antimicrobial activity.”
    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.