green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.9 score
“sgk v. kodak”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Perseptive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc.
It added: “It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had discovered had qualities they failed to detect.” Id. at 249 , 66 S.Ct. 81 ; see also De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U.S. 664, 682 , 51 S.Ct. 563 , 75 L.Ed. 1339 (1931) (“It is method and device which may be patented and not the scientific explanation of their operation.”); accord Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., 630 F.2d 120, 137 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Smith, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1977 , 1989, 1990 WL 121353 (E.D.Pa.1990), aff'd, *286 959 F.2d 936 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[t]he policy rationales behind the patent statutes generally apply with even greater strength in the case of drug patents.
cited
Cited "see"
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Country Floors, Inc. v. A Partnership Composed of Charley Gepner and Gary Ford, D/B/A Country Tiles
See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., Inc., 630 F.2d 120 , 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crucible Materials Corp. v. Sumitomo Special Metals Co.
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 , 136 n. 73 (3rd Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc., 436 F.2d 1180, 1187 (7th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 403 U.S. 942 , 91 S.Ct. 2270 , 29 L.Ed.2d 722 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 450 F.Supp. 1211, 1227 (E.D.Tex.1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith International, Inc., a California Corporation v. Hughes Tool Company, a Delaware Corporation
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Tyrolean Handbag Co. v. Empress Hand Bag, Inc., 122 F.Supp. 299, 302 (S.D.N.Y.1954).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
Moreover, while the burden rests on the moving party to make these two requisite showings, the district court “should take into account, when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.” In Re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir.1982) (quoting Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir.1975) (citations omitted)); see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L…
discussed
Cited "see"
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Dart Industries, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle (SGK) v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Advanced Hydraulics, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 525 F.2d 477 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 869 , 96 S.Ct. 132 , 46 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); Baker Mfg.
discussed
Cited "see"
Farber v. Servan Land Company
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315, 1322-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980). 38 It should be noted that the district court not only found that the stockholders frequently discussed acquisition of Mr. Farquhar's land at their meetings; it also found that the stockholders had discussed this matter at the last meeting, just shortly before Serianni and Savin made their purchase, and that they had "indicated a sense of approval to the idea of acquiring abutting land from Mr. Farquhar." Record Excerpts at 65.
cited
Cited "see"
Farber v. Servan Land Co.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315, 1322-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
Mayview Corporation v. Rodstein, 480 F.2d 714, 717 (C.A.9, 1973); see Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., 630 F.2d 120 , 136 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Constructors Ass’n of Western Pennsylvania v. Kreps, 573 F.2d 811, 814-15 (C.A.3, 1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George v. State
See Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 526 Pa. 555 , 587 A.2d 1353, 1356 (1991) (concluding an FBI computer expert's recovery of electronic files from a computer lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant did not constitute a search in part because "many analogous situations," such as deciphering a lawfully seized coded diary, "do not require police officers to obtain a second search warrant" (emphasis in original)), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Rizzuto, 566 Pa. 40 , 777 A.2d 1069, 1088-89 (2001); State v. Petrone, 161 Wis.2d 530 , 468 N.W.2d 676, 681 (1991) (concluding the development of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosen Entertainment Systems, LP v. Eiger Vision
See e.g., Chisum, Patents § 20.04[l][e][iv], citing, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (considering inability of accused infringer to pay potential damage award); Wang Lab. v. Chip Merchant, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Robert J. Krut, Vernon Holmes, W. Hunt Dumont, Michael Milner
Smith Corp. v. FTC, 530 F.2d 515 , 525 (3d Cir.1976); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Constructors Association of Western Pennsylvania v. Kreps, 573 F.2d 811, 814-15 (3d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwood v. Tomkins
See e.g., Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (district court's grant before state trial of petition for habeas corpus on speedy trial claim was premature since comity requires exhaustion of state proceedings before collateral relief can be sought); Bryant v. Bailey, 464 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1115 , 93 S.Ct. 932 , 34 L.Ed.2d 698 (1973) (state remedies held not exhausted where prisoner had unsuccessfully petitioned state courts for free transcript for appeal, and appeal still pending); Daniels v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwood v. Tomkins
See e.g., Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (district court’s grant before state trial of petition for habeas corpus on speedy trial claim was premature since comity requires exhaustion of state proceedings before collateral relief can be sought); Bryant v. Bailey, 464 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1115 , 93 S.Ct. 932 , 34 L.Ed.2d 698 (1973) (state remedies held not exhausted where prisoner had unsuccessfully petitioned state courts for free transcript for appeal, and appeal still pending); Daniels…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bradley Thomas Jacobsen and Donna Marie Jacobsen
(2×)
See also People v. Adler, 50 N.Y.2d 730 , 431 N.Y.S.2d 412 , 409 N.E.2d 888 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); cf. United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980), (upholding without discussion search involving sampling and testing following more limited private search).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A.
See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Trio Process Corp. v. L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Standard Oil Company (Indiana) v. Montedison
See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Trio Process Corp. v. L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schneider
v.
Bowes
v.
Bowes
No. 80-531.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: D. Delaware (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.