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.

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

    754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming judgment that claims were not inherently anticipated where the prior art only showed that the limitation might occur, not that it inevitably occurred

    “[T]he person of ordinary skill need only have a reasonable expectation of success of developing the claimed invention.” Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2013) (emphasis added). The ' 029 patent is not limited to compounds with a C1–amide group, such as bimatoprost or the broader class of compounds described in the ' 819 patent.