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.

30 Citing cases

  1. Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.

    2017-1499 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017)

    The district court found the asserted claims not invalid as obvious, reasoning that Sandoz presented substantially the same arguments and evidence in an earlier dispute with Allergan in which we held that claim 4 of the '149 patent recited an efficacy limitation that is neither suggested nor inherent in any prior art in the record. J.A. 74-76; see also Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Relying on that precedential decision, the court found that all asserted claims recited analogous efficacy limitations, neither suggested nor inherent in prior art produced by Sandoz.

  2. Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    555 F. App'x 961 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 12 times

    The determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying facts. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2013). After a bench trial, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.

  3. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd.

    Civil Action 21-900-RGA (D. Del. Jul. 31, 2024)

    “[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent's subject matter.” Id. at 420; see Janssen Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 97 F.4th 915, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“A motivation ‘may be found in many different places and forms.'” (quoting Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.

  4. Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.

    CASE NO. 2:12-CV-207-JRG (LEAD CASE) (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2016)

    Allergan and Sandoz both appealed the Court's ruling to the Federal Circuit. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, finding that the asserted claims of the '463 patent were invalid as obvious.

  5. Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.

    211 F. Supp. 3d 907 (E.D. Tex. 2016)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Allergan and Sandoz both appealed the Court's ruling to the Federal Circuit. SeeAllergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286 (Fed.Cir.2013). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, finding that the asserted claims of the '463 patent were invalid as obvious.

  6. Sanofi v. Watson Labs. Inc.

    875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 45 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding induced infringement where the label "directs medical providers to information identifying the desired benefit for only patients with the patent-claimed risk factors" and "[t]here was considerable testimony that this label encourages ... administration of the drug to those patients"

    Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of law based on underlying questions of fact. Allergan, Inc.v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Watson and Sandoz accept the legal framework under which they had to establish that, as of February 2008, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the processes claimed would succeed in their (claimed) aims, a factual issue.

  7. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.

    837 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Octane Fitness's totality of the circumstances test, "it does not necessarily follow" from a willfulness determination "that the case is exceptional"

    Invalidity by reason of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103is a legal conclusion based on underlying facts. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed.Cir.2013). Zimmer has the burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

  8. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.

    782 F.3d 649 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 12 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's award of treble damages for willful infringement after jury verdict of infringement

    Invalidity by reason of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a legal conclusion based on underlying facts. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed.Cir.2013). Zimmer has the burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

  9. I/P Engine, Inc. v. Aol Inc.

    576 F. App'x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 22 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Arguing that subject matter eligibility should have been decided at the outset of the case to avoid “unnecessary litigation, and nearly two weeks of trial and imposition on citizen jurors”

    Here, however, I/P Engine introduced scant evidence on secondary considerations. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that secondary considerations did "not weigh heavily in the obviousness analysis"). Indeed, the district court did not even cite to the jury's findings on secondary considerations when it concluded that the asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness.

  10. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 63 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding no clear error in district court's fact finding that "entecavir's ‘effectiveness against hepatitis B without known toxicity issues’ was ‘not unexpected ,’ " and deferring to district court's finding that this was not sufficient evidence of nonobviousness

    We have held an invention to be obvious despite findings of unexpected results. See, e.g., Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1293 (Fed.Cir.2013); Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1369–70 (Fed.Cir.2012); Pfizer, 480 F.3d at 1372. B.