Legal Opinion · Dissent

Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. Apotex Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided March 31, 2014No. 2013-1027Published

1DissentO’Malley, Circuit Judge

The dispositive issue in this case is whether Senju’s reexamined claims granted new patent rights that Senju could not have asserted in its first lawsuit against Apotex. The majority says that, “a so-called ‘reexamined patent’ is the original patent.” Maj. Op. at 1352 (emphasis added). Under the majority’s reasoning, after a patentee asserts a patent’s original claims in one lawsuit, a subsequent lawsuit asserting the patent’s reexamined claims against the same defendant is an improper attempt to revisit a patent that has already been adjudicated. But, it is the rights created by a patent…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  4. Kessler v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  5. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013

8 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