Legal Opinion
Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 6, 2018No. 2014-1469, 2014-1504PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hughes, Circuit Judge.
The Medicines Company appeals findings of no infringement made by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appeals the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the district court’s noninfringement findings and remand the case for the district court to determine whether the on-sale bar applies.
I
The Medicines Company owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343. Both patent applications were filed on July 27, 2008. The patents cover an…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Wms Gaming Inc. v. International Game TechnologyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Intel Corporation v. Ulsi System Technology, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Energy Heating, LLC. v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Tour Tech. Software, Inc. v. RTV, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2019
- Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production MacHinery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2024
- CR Bard v. AngioDynamicsDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2020
- CR Bard v. AngioDynamicsDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.