§Why CasetextPricing

BASF AGRO B.V., ARNHEM (NL), WADENSWIL BRANCH et al v. CHEMINOVA, INC.

REPLY

6 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,698 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  3. Serio-US Industries, Inc. v. Plastic Recovery Technologies Corp.

    459 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 91 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "will impose [unfair competition] liability on a patentee for marketplace statements only if the statements [were] made in bad faith."

  4. Spansion v. International Trade Com'n

    629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 67 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the patentee's selection of fifty-two representative cases was not “improper burden shifting,” but rather that the defendant “simply failed to rebut the substantial evidence set forth” by the patentee

  5. Morton Intern., Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co.

    5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims indefinite because one skilled in the art could not determine whether a given compound was within the scope of the claims

  6. Pfizer Inc. v. Synthon Holding

    1:05CV39 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2006)

    1:05CV39. March 7, 2006 MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES BEATY, District Judge This case is a patent infringement action brought by Plaintiff Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer") against Defendants Synthon Holding, B.V., Synthon, B.V., Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Synthon Laboratories, Inc. ("Defendants" or "Synthon"). The matter is presently before the Court on three issues: competing claim construction briefs filed by the parties [Documents ##85, 89, 93, 97]; a Motion by Pfizer to Strike the Reply Declaration