Merck Co v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 161 timesFinding a prior art reference disclosing that a compound would be "suitable for . . . pharmaceutical preparations" insufficient to anticipate the particular claimed therapeutic use of the compound in the patent at issue
Creative Compounds Llc v. Laboratories
651 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 88 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding summary judgment proper where nonmoving party fails to establish genuine issues of material fact
Kemin Foods v. Pigmentos Vege. Del Centro
464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 71 timesHolding that where a party's legal position as to the scope of a patent was sufficiently plausible, the party could not have acted with the requisite deceptive purpose
Rapoport v. Dement
254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 55 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding no inherent anticipation where intent for administering buspirone as part of asserted claims - to treat sleep apnea - resulted in manipulative difference from method disclosed in prior art - which was to treat anxiety; dosing regime for anxiety was three times daily while regime for sleep apnea was larger dose once a day at time of sleep
Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
803 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D. Va. 2011) Cited 16 times 2 Legal AnalysesConcluding that after Therasense, “a party must make an initial showing from which it may be plausibly inferred that: the individual knew of the information not disclosed; the information not disclosed was but-for material to the prosecution of the patent; and the intent to deceive is the single most likely explanation for the non-disclosure”
Everett Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridgue Pharm.
573 F. Supp. 2d 855 (D.N.J. 2008) Cited 7 timesCollecting post- eBay cases