Legal Opinion
Insite Vision Incorporated v. Sandoz, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 9, 2015No. 2014-1065PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINN, Circuit Judge. '
In this Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”) appeals the district court’s decision in InSite Vision, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 11-3080, 2013 WL 5975015 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2013), which held that Sandoz had not shown that the claims of U.S. Patents No. 6,861,411 (the “'411 patent”); No. 6,239,113 (the “'113 patent”); No. 6,569,443 (the “'443 patent”); and No. 7,056,893 (the “'893 patent”) (collectively “the patents-in-suit”) asserted by Insite Vision, Inc. (“Insite”); Inspire Pharm., Inc. (“Inspire”); and Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) are…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. SteinbronnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Raniere v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS v. IANCUCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Profectus Technology LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. West-Ward PharmaceuticalsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.