Legal Opinion
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 18, 2013No. 2011-1223PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc. (“Novo”) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which held that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358 (“'358 patent”) was invalid as obvious and that the '358 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. See Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., 775 F.Supp.2d 985, 1025 (E.D.Mich.2011). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Insite Vision Incorporated v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.