Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Smithkline Beecham Corporation and Beecham Group, P.L.C. v. Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Defendants-Cross

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided April 23, 2004No. 03-1285, 03-1313Published

1ConcurrenceGajarsa, Circuit Judge

I concur in the court’s judgment finding Claim 1 of the '723 patent invalid, however, I reach the judgment by a different statutory provision. I would find Claim 1 invalid because it encompasses subject matter that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1

I

A. Authority

The question of patentability under Section 101 does not arise often, and a court’s decision to raise it sua sponte is even less common. The centrality of patentable subject matter to the entire scope of the patent law suggests that there are times when such inquiries are critical. The Supreme Court established long ago that “the…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API