Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.3d 1283 · 2012
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 7 U.S.C. § 136A
Relies on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Ashcroft v. al-Kidd · Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[P]urely extraterritorial conduct cannot constitute direct infringement of a U.S. patent, as § 271(a) includes express language limiting its scope to domestic acts.' " Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. , 681 F.3d 1283 , 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a) ). 20 On the other hand, the Federal Circuit has explained, because § 271(b)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a doctrine of federal comity, intended to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency, that favors pursuing only the first-filed action when multiple lawsuits involving the same claims are filed in different jurisdictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“adopted a burden-shifting mechanism so that 'if the defendant contends that he cannot be sued in the forum state and refuses to identify any other where suit is possible, then the federal court is entitled to use Rule 4(k)(2).'”
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.