In re Payne

How courts have described this case

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

• describing differences between claimed compounds and prior art, and articulating bracketing concept
• new compounds useful as pesticides were prima facie obvious from structurally similar prior art compounds known as pesticides
• discussing the presumption of obviousness based on close structural similarity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-05-13· cited 168×
• Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB
  Federal Circuit· 1989-12-13· cited 109×
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-12-26· cited 97×
• In Re Merck & Co., Inc
  Federal Circuit· 1986-09-08· cited 82×
• In Re Diane M. Dillon
  Federal Circuit· 1990-11-09· cited 74×
• Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-08-23· cited 53×
• In Re Gary E. GEIGER
  Federal Circuit· 1987-04-01· cited 52×
• In Re Sujeet Kumar
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-15· cited 33×
• In re Sasse
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1980-07-17· cited 32×
• In Re Raymond C. Grabiak
  Federal Circuit· 1985-08-09· cited 29×
• In Re John P. Chupp
  Federal Circuit· 1987-04-15· cited 25×
• In re Boesch
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1980-03-13· cited 24×
• In Re Wayne O. Johnson
  Federal Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 21×
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc
  Federal Circuit· 2014-10-20· cited 16×
• George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 1981-10-27· cited 14×
• Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2020-04-08· cited 12×
• Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2004-10-15· cited 11×
• Schering Corp. v. Precision-Cosmet Co., Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1985-07-02· cited 9×
• Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1990-08-02· cited 8×
• In Re Diane M. Dillon
  Federal Circuit· 1990-05-21· cited 5×

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Application of Eric D. Brown
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1964-06-02· cited 46×
• In re May
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-04-20· cited 43×
• In re Samour
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-02-23· cited 31×
• Application of Paul E. Hoch
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1970-07-30· cited 23×
• In re Murch
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-08-24· cited 23×
• Application of Herman Hoeksema
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1968-08-08· cited 21×
• In re Herr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1962-07-11· cited 21×
• In re Lindner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-04-06· cited 20×
• In re Merchant
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-05-11· cited 20×
• Application of Jean Druey and Paul Schmidt
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1963-09-27· cited 17×
• In re Greenfield
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-03-16· cited 17×
• Application of Philip S. Fay and Fred J. Fox
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1965-06-24· cited 15×
• In re Mageli
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-01-18· cited 15×
• In re Gyurik
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1979-04-12· cited 15×
• Application of Jerome J. Kanter
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1968-07-03· cited 14×
• In re Swan Wood
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-08-31· cited 13×
• In re Blondel
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1974-06-27· cited 11×
• Application of Alfred Aufhauser
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1968-10-10· cited 10×
• Application of John P. Swentzel (The Carborundum Co., Assignee)
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1955-02-08· cited 8×
• In re Holladay
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-10-26· cited 7×