Legal Opinion
Schering Corp. v. Zeneca Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 20, 1996No. Civil Action 95-566-RRMPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McKELVIE, District Judge.
This is a patent case. Plaintiff Schering Corporation (“Schering”) and involuntary plaintiff Roussel-Uclaf SA (“Roussel”) are the co-owners of U.S. Patent No. 4,472,382 (the “ ’382 Patent”). The ’382 patent claims a method of treating prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy, which is a benign enlargement of the prostate common in men over 50 years of age. The claimed method' involves applying two therapies at the same time — introducing chemicals, known as antiandrogens, into the body to neutralize the effect of certain male hormones, known as…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- William T. Turner v. Schering-Plough CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Elizabeth F. Shuder and Robert J. Shuder v. McDonald Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Krosnowski v. KrosnowskiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
- Cooper Laboratories, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- American Metrocomm Corp. v. Duane Morris & Heckscher LLP (In Re American Metrocomm Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2002
- Advanced Video Technologies v. Htc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Advanced Video Technologies v. Htc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- stc.unm v. Intel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- stc.unm v. Intel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014