Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

    862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 26 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art taught away from modification where it "would have been unattractive to a person of ordinary skill for fear of disturbing the chemical properties whereby bortezomib functions effectively as an anti-cancer agent"

    After a bench trial, appellate review of the district court's factual findings is for clear error, and conclusions of law receive de novo review. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Invalidity of an issued patent must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

  2. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare Inc.

    669 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D. Del. 2023)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Purdue there was no debate that a POSA would be successful using known techniques-the issue was whether a POSA would be motivated to use the known techniques.

    A POSA's "[m]otivation to combine may be found in many different places and forms." Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). "[I]t often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends."

  3. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 19-474-KAJ (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    39. Actavis has established that a POSA would have "a reasonable expectation of success of developing the claimed invention." Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2013); FF, supra ¶¶ 138-156. Where, as is the case here, the prior art provides the means of making the invention and predicts the results, and the results are verifiable through "routine testing," the claims are obvious.

  4. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis Inc.

    Civil Action No. 14-1381-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    It is true "that FDA approval may be relevant to the obviousness inquiry." Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As defendants note, the Federal Circuit has stated that, "The potential for FDA approval also may properly be considered . . . in determining whether one of ordinary skill would be motivated to develop a drug product and whether there was skepticism regarding the efficacy of such a product."

  5. Oxbo Int'l Corp. v. H&S Mfg. Co.

    15-cv-292-jdp (W.D. Wis. May. 23, 2017)

    Obviousness "is a legal conclusion based on underlying facts," including "the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any relevant secondary considerations." Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In response to Oxbo's motion, H&S points to several different prior art combinations.