50 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,184 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
572 U.S. 545 (2014) Cited 1,395 times 122 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,523 times 180 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"
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
520 U.S. 17 (1997) Cited 1,700 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
508 U.S. 49 (1993) Cited 1,137 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.
535 U.S. 722 (2002) Cited 813 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."
White v. Lee
227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 2,097 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.
570 U.S. 136 (2013) Cited 309 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"
Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.
339 U.S. 605 (1950) Cited 1,515 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence
France v. Abbott Labs.
707 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 482 times 3 Legal Analyses
Describing antitrust standing as a prudential limitation that “does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, as Article III standing does”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,128 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,066 times 465 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Section 355 - New drugs
21 U.S.C. § 355 Cited 2,253 times 341 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination
35 U.S.C. § 132 Cited 308 times 47 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting addition of "new matter"
Section 355a - Pediatric studies of drugs
21 U.S.C. § 355a Cited 68 times 12 Legal Analyses
(a) Definitions As used in this section, the term "pediatric studies" or "studies" means at least one clinical investigation (that, at the Secretary's discretion, may include pharmacokinetic studies) in pediatric age groups (including neonates in appropriate cases) in which a drug is anticipated to be used, and, at the discretion of the Secretary, may include preclinical studies. (b) Market exclusivity for new drugs (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, prior to approval of an application
Section 1.126 - Numbering of claims
37 C.F.R. § 1.126
The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When claims are added, they must be numbered by the applicant consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not). When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order in which they appear or in such

Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Inc et al

50 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"

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"

Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”

Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

Describing antitrust standing as a prudential limitation that “does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, as Article III standing does”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

Prohibiting addition of "new matter"