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.

11 Citing cases

  1. Allergan Sales LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.

    Civ. No. 2:17-cv-10129 (WHW) (CLW) (D.N.J. Jul. 13, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    On appeal, the Federal Circuit found the '463 patent, which claimed the timolol/ brimonidine combination, invalid as obvious. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. ("Combigan® I Appeal"), 726 F.3d 1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2013). However, unlike the '463 patent, claim 4 of the '149 patent contained the additional limitation that the "daily number of doses of brimonidine be reduced from 3 to 2 times a day without loss of efficacy."

  2. Sandoz Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.

    572 U.S. 1034 (2014)

    SANDOZ INC., et al., petitioners, v. ALLERGAN, INC.Case below, 726 F.3d 1286. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

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

    935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Accordingly, the Opinion and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is Sandoz’s argument that the District Court erred by considering this Court’s earlier decisions in Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. , 717 F. App'x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Appellant’s Br. 62–67, is mistaken. Indeed, the District Court was well within its discretion to consider those decisions concerning related patents to support its claim construction determination.

  4. Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer Intellectual Prop. GMBH, Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.

    874 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that an oral disintegrating tablet ("ODT") to treat erectile dysfunction ("ED") was obvious where "[a]ll six of the prior art references ... identify ED drugs as ODT formulations"

    There is no requirement in patent law that the person of ordinary skill be motivated to develop the claimed invention based on a rationale that forms the basis for FDA approval. Motivation to combine may be found in many different places and forms; it cannot be limited to those reasons the FDA sees fit to consider in approving drug applications.Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While FDA approval may be relevant to the obviousness inquiry, see id. at 1291–92, a lack of FDA approval cannot negate an otherwise apparent motivation to formulate a product.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Noven Pharm., Inc.

    125 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    To prove obviousness, a party must show that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to combine the claimed combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2013). Evidence of obviousness, especially when that evidence is proffered in support of an “obvious-to-try” theory, is insufficient unless it indicates that the possible options skilled artisans would have encountered were “finite,” “small,” or “easily traversed,” and “that skilled artisans would have had a reason to select the route that produced the claimed invention.”

  8. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 11-1077-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 18, 2014)

    To prove obviousness, Watson must show that a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the claimed combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Evidence of obviousness, especially when that evidence is proffered in support of an "obvious-to-try" theory, is insufficient unless it indicates that the possible options skilled artisans would have encountered were "finite," "small," or "easily traversed," and "that skilled artisans would have had a reason to select the route that produced the claimed invention."

  9. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    48 F. Supp. 3d 733 (D. Del. 2014)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding infringement where testing showed the presence of the claimed "antioxidant" despite it not being listed in the ANDA specification

    To prove obviousness, Watson must show that a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the claimed combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2013). Evidence of obviousness, especially when that evidence is proffered in support of an “obvious-to-try” theory, is insufficient unless it indicates that the possible options skilled artisans would have encountered were “finite,” “small,” or “easily traversed,” and “that skilled artisans would have had a reason to select the route that produced the claimed invention.”

  10. Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 09-750-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the limitation of the “Asp9 impurity level below 0.6%” of the '727 patent claims met by defendant's ANDA specification which sought approval for drug product with Asp9 impurity levels up to 1.0%, noting “the fact that the ANDA application includes Asp9–bivalirudin levels above 0.6%, and at some point Hospira might make a batch with levels above 0.6%, does not negate a finding of infringement”

    To prove obviousness, Defendants must show that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the claimed combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Evidence of obviousness, especially when that evidence is proffered in support of an "obvious-to-try" theory, is insufficient unless it indicates that the possible options skilled artisans would have encountered were "finite," "small," or "easily traversed," and that skilled artisans would have had a reason to select the route that produced the claimed invention.