8 Cited authorities

  1. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,194 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo
  2. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk

    566 U.S. 399 (2012)   Cited 177 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding “Caraco may bring a counterclaim seeking to ‘correct’ Novo's use code ‘on the ground that’ the '358 patent ‘does not claim ... an approved method of using the drug’— indeed, does not claim two ”
  3. Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

    746 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding claims required separate and distinct matrices based on a prosecution history statement
  4. Shire Dev. LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

    Case No. 12-60862-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON (S.D. Fla. May. 9, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    In Shire, the intrinsic record - including the claims - presented no significant risk of confusion that the "inner lipophilic matrix" and "outer lipophilic matrix" were separate and distinct, making it unnecessary to add a "separate and distinct" limitation through claim construction.
  5. GlaxoSmithKline PLC v. Hikma Pharm. Co.

    Civil Action No. 12-1965 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jul. 31, 2012)

    Civil Action No. 12-1965 (FLW) 07-31-2012 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC, et al Plaintiffs, v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. et al Defendants. Freda L. Wolfson *NOT FOR PUBLICATION OPINION This matter comes before the Court upon a Complaint brought by Plaintiffs GlaxoSmithKline PLC et al ("Plaintiffs" or "GSK") against Defendants Hikma Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al ("Defendants" or "Hikma") for patent infringement in violation of Title 35 of the United States Code. In response, Hikma has filed a counterclaim

  6. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 96-5541 (MLC) (D.N.J. Jun. 17, 2004)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No. 96-5541 (MLC). June 17, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION MARY COOPER, District Judge I. Introduction This patent case was tried to a jury on plaintiff's claim of infringement and defendant's claims of invalidity on grounds of obviousness and prior invention. During trial, both parties made timely Rule 50 motions, which this Court deferred until post-verdict pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 50(b). The verdict was in favor of plaintiff. Defendant timely renewed its motion

  7. Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Lab. Corp.

    981 F. Supp. 299 (D. Del. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    Civil Action No. 95-479-RRM. September 30, 1997. Josy W. Ingersoll, James P. Hughes, Jr., Young, Conaway, Stargatt Taylor, Wilmington, DE; John O. Tramontine, Duane-David Hough, Thomas J. Vetter, John M. Desmarais, and Louis W. Zehil, Fish Neave, New York City; for plaintiff. Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell, Wilmington, DE; Sheldon I. Landsman, Scott M. Daniels, Brett S. Sylvester, Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak Seas, Washington, D.C.; for defendant. OPINION McKELVIE, District Judge

  8. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 34,686 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney