Legal Opinion
University of Rochester v. GD Searle & Co., Inc.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided March 5, 2003No. 00-CV-3161LPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
LARIMER, District Judge.
Patent law often involves subject matter and legal principles that can be both complex and arcane. But there are some basic principles that should be evident even to the lay person.
An “inventor” or patentee is entitled to a patent to protect his work but only if he produces or has possession of something truly new and novel. The “invention” he claims must be sufficiently concrete so that it can be described for the world to appreciate the specific nature of the work that sets it apart from what was before. The inventor must be able to describe the…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Carl J. Perreira and Christina J. Perreira, Parents and Next Friend of Carly C. Perreira v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007
- Teknowledge Corp. v. Cellco PartnershipDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009