Cancer Research Technology Limited and Schering v. Barr Laboratories
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1DissentProst, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority opinion seriously errs in reversing the district court’s findings and conclusions that U.S. Patent No. 5,260,291 (“'291 patent”) is unenforceable on the grounds of both prosecution laches and inequitable conduct. In doing so, the majority propounds a new and unsupportable legal standard for prosecution laches. With regard to inequitable conduct, the majority not only creates a new evidentiary standard, but it also ignores virtually unassailable credibility findings made by the district court after a four-day bench trial. I address each in turn…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kendall v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Lnp Engineering Plastics, Inc. And Kawasaki Chemical Holding Co., Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc. (Trading as Rtp Company), Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Woodbridge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.