Customs and Patent Appeals· 3/20/1963
Application of Viktor Papesch
Citations
- 315 F.2d 381
- 50 C.C.P.A. 1084
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.”
- “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.”
- find- ing Honeywell’s stability data to be unpersuasive “in light of the evidence of routine testing and overall unpredicta- bility as to stability in the art” (emphases added)
- “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.... There is no basis in law for ignoring any property .in making such a comparison.”
- “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.... There is no basis in law for ignoring any property in making such a comparison.”
- a chemical compound and its properties are inseparable
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Worley, Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
92 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re Patrick H. O'farrell, Barry A. Polisky and David H. GelfandFederal Circuit· 1988-08-10· cited 140×
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas CompanyThird Circuit· 1972-03-09· cited 101×
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2008-12-12· cited 84×
- In Re Merck & Co., IncFederal Circuit· 1986-09-08· cited 82×
- The Regents of the University of New Mexico v. Galen D. Knight, and [Pg] Terence J. ScallenFederal Circuit· 2003-04-04· cited 77×
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. William N. Otte, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.Second Circuit· 1973-06-04· cited 74×
- In Re Diane M. DillonFederal Circuit· 1990-11-09· cited 74×
- In Re Lonnie T. Spada and Joseph J. WilczynskiFederal Circuit· 1990-08-10· cited 64×
- Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2011-08-23· cited 53×
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2014-06-12· cited 52×
- Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumüller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred BänderCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1965-04-22· cited 43×
- Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd.Federal Circuit· 2007-09-11· cited 41×
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas CompanyE.D. Pennsylvania· 1970-05-21· cited 35×
- In Re Nancy G. Mayne, Rama Belagaje, Paul J. Burnett and Hansen M. HsiungFederal Circuit· 1997-01-17· cited 32×
- Application of Arthur D. Lohr and Harold M. SpurlinCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1963-05-16· cited 31×
- Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals RoesslerD.C. Circuit· 1968-05-08· cited 31×
- In re SamourCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1978-02-23· cited 31×
- Application of Joseph R. Riden, Jr., and James P. FlavinCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1963-06-20· cited 29×
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.S.D. Texas· 1983-01-05· cited 28×
- Application of John R. StemniskiCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-10-07· cited 27×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. FallCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1962-04-13· cited 89×
- Application of Aubrey A. LarsenCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1961-10-24· cited 55×
- Application of HenzeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1950-04-03· cited 35×
- Schering Corporation v. GilbertSecond Circuit· 1946-01-18· cited 35×
- Application of Franz Bergel and John Albert StockCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1961-07-21· cited 34×
- In Re HassCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1944-02-07· cited 33×
- Application of Victor MillsCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1960-08-11· cited 28×
- Application of John P. LambooyCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1962-04-13· cited 22×
- In Re GauerkeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1936-11-30· cited 14×
- Application of SchechterCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1953-06-03· cited 13×
- Parker v. MarzallDistrict of Columbia· 1950-07-18· cited 12×
- In re CoesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1949-04-12· cited 5×
- Sterling Drug Inc. v. WatsonDistrict of Columbia· 1955-11-02· cited 4×
- Larsen v. LaddSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 2×
- Ruskin v. WatsonDistrict of Columbia· 1954-04-08· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.