In Re Montgomery

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the patent holder “does not dispute that Ramipril [, a use of which is prior art,] is in fact effective at preventing or treating stroke, which is the entire premise of his patent”
• expressing “skeptic[ism]” that the phrase “for the treat- ment or prevention of stroke” in a claim preamble was more than an expression of purpose for the claimed meth- od
• “The inherent result must inevitably re- sult from the disclosed steps . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-12-04· cited 231×
• Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Patent and Trademark Office
  Federal Circuit· 2012-10-23· cited 26×
• U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S
  Federal Circuit· 2016-12-15· cited 22×
• Dawson v. Dawson and Bowman
  Federal Circuit· 2013-03-25· cited 10×
• Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center v. Eli Lilly & Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-02-28· cited 9×
• Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool & Mfg.
  E.D. Illinois· 2018-01-11· cited 6×
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2016-12-19· cited 5×
• Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-09-23· cited 3×
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2014-08-28· cited 2×
• Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech Inc.
  N.D. California· 2017-02-24· cited 1×
• In Re COUVARAS
  Federal Circuit· 2023-06-14
• Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2025-03-04
• Sig Sauer, et al. v. Freed Designs (Doc. No. 83)
  D. New Hampshire· 2017-09-14

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• Dickinson v. Zurko
  Supreme Court· 1999-06-10· cited 997×
• Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. And Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Doing Business as Labcorp)
  Federal Circuit· 2004-06-08· cited 291×
• Celeritas Technologies, Ltd., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Rockwell International Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-09-14· cited 156×
• Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-04-08· cited 127×
• In re Oelrich
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1981-12-10· cited 99×
• In Re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation
  Federal Circuit· 2002-09-30· cited 92×
• Glaxo Inc. And Glaxo Group Limited v. Novopharm Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-06-21· cited 86×
• Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-10-03· cited 77×
• In Re American Academy of Science Tech Center
  Federal Circuit· 2004-05-13· cited 76×
• King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labels, Inc
  Federal Circuit· 2010-08-02· cited 75×
• In Re Raymond G. Bond
  Federal Circuit· 1990-11-01· cited 62×
• Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-04-16· cited 58×
• Hansgirg v. Kemmer
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1939-02-27· cited 53×
• In Re NTP, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-08-01· cited 45×
• Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-09-25· cited 37×
• In Re Aoyama
  Federal Circuit· 2011-08-29· cited 23×
• Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-09-01· cited 17×