§Why CasetextPricing

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Hec Pharm Co., Ltd. et al

REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

10 Cited authorities

  1. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 461 times   148 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  2. O2 Micro Intern. v. Monolithic Power Sys

    467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 635 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that diligence must be considered in determining whether good cause exists to amend infringement contentions

  3. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

    827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 165 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept "when they amount to nothing more than observing or identifying the ineligible concept itself

  4. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 132 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  5. Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

    136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 15–1182. 06-27-2016 SEQUENOM, INC., petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

  6. Data Distribution Techs., LLC v. Brer Affiliates, Inc.

    Civil No. 12-4878 (JBS/KMW) (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a “method of maintaining and distributing database information” “directed to an abstract idea”

  7. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    173 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Finding the defendant had not waived § 101 invalidity challenge by failing to include it in its responses to plaintiff's interrogatories because the Northern District of Georgia's Local Patent Rule 4.3 did not require such disclosure

  8. Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.

    147 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    In Radware, the court found that claim language directed to a device "operable to" carry out certain functions was "distinguishable from [the claims] at issue in Finjan" that described only capability.

  9. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis Inc.

    C. A. No. 14-1381-RGA (D. Del. Sep. 23, 2015)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    C. A. No. 14-1381-RGA 09-23-2015 ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and MALLINCKRODT LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ACTAVIS INC. and ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC, Defendants. Mary Pat Thynge UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Presently before the court is Actavis Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic LLC's (collectively, "defendants") motion to dismiss Counts I, III, and IV of plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Endo") and Mallinckrodt

  10. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 365,903 times   967 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss