Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 1543 - Merck & Co. v. Kessler

Merck & Co. v. Kessler’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 1543 · 1996

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2025
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. (2005), Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (2011)

36 federal appellate · 8 district ·

4301996200020102020decided

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

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · General Electric Co. v. Gilbert · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the term of the patent has not expired before an application is submitted under subsection (d)(1) for its extension; (2) the term of the patent has never been extended under subsection (e)(1) of this section; (3) an application for extension is submitted by the owner of record of the patent or its agent and in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (d); (4) the product has been subject to a regulatory review period before its commercial marketing or use; [and] (5)(A) ... the permission for the commercial marketing or use of the product after such regulatory review period is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product under the provision of law under which such regulatory review period occurred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here Congress has authorized an agency to promulgate substantive rules under a statute it is charged with administering, we must uphold the agency's interpretation of an ambiguity or omission in that statute if the interpretation is a reasonable one.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”
    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.