Legal Opinion
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided July 26, 2013No. 2012-1567, 2012-1568, 2012-1569, 2012-1570PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
The defendants in these consolidated patent infringement actions (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the district court’s judgment that various claims of the nine patents-in-suit asserted by the plaintiffs (collectively, Teva) are infringed, and from the court’s holdings regarding indefiniteness, nonenablement, and obviousness. 1 We hold that Group I claims are invalid for indefiniteness, but that Group II claims have not been proven indefinite. 2 We also hold that the district court did not err in its conclusions that the claims are infringed, and that the Appellants…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Alza Corporation v. Mylan LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2014
- Janssen Products, L.P. v. Lupin Ltd.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
- Inre: HaaseCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.