38 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,866 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,014 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
520 U.S. 17 (1997) Cited 1,694 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"
Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.
334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 1,175 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous
Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police
71 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 1,490 times
Holding that "probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested"
Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.
339 U.S. 605 (1950) Cited 1,513 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
Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Services, Inc.
561 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 441 times
Holding that "the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant" is a requisite element of the tort of tortious interference with business relationships
Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc.
160 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 506 times
Holding that where the reason for an amendment is clear from the prosecution history, the Warner-Jenkinson presumption does not apply
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 277 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a chemical formulation that the applicants could have claimed given that it appeared in their priority application, but chose not to, falls outside the scope, literal or equivalent, of the claim
Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.
212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 358 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts can consider statements made in the ANDA to instruct their infringement analysis
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,220 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,031 times 1045 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Orchid Pharma Ltd. et al

38 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 a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

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

Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

Holding that "probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested"

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

Holding that "the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant" is a requisite element of the tort of tortious interference with business relationships

Holding that where the reason for an amendment is clear from the prosecution history, the Warner-Jenkinson presumption does not apply

Holding that a chemical formulation that the applicants could have claimed given that it appeared in their priority application, but chose not to, falls outside the scope, literal or equivalent, of the claim

Holding that courts can consider statements made in the ANDA to instruct their infringement analysis

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

Holding that testing is a "use"