Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 1553 · 1996
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Texas Instruments Incorporated v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation Lsi Vlsi (1996), Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems (2000)
19 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 state decisions
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 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 288
Relies on Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Angel v. Bullington · Burgos v. Hopkins
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule ... is largely predicated on the as sumption that the jurisdiction in which the first judgment was rendered was one which put no formal barriers in the way of a litigant’s presenting to a court in one action the entire claim including any theories of recovery or demands for relief that might have been available to him "under applicable law. When such formal barriers in fact existed and were operative against a plaintiff in the first action, it is unfair to preclude him from a second action in which he can present those phases of the claim which he was disabled from presenting in the first.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“35 U.S.C. § 271 (g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent---- A product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after— (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he statute [ 35 U.S.C. § 271 (g) ] does not specify what products will be considered to have been ‘made by’ the patented process, apparently because Congress wanted the courts to resolve this critical question of proximity to the product of the patented process on a case-by-case basis.”
2 later decisions 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.