Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 2024

  • Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC

    To list a patent in the Orange Book as covering a product that is the subject of an NDA, the patent must claim the active ingredient drug for which the NDA was submitted and approved. 

  • CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corporation

    Proving vicarious liability of a system claim requires showing that a first party directed or controlled a second party’s use of the system as a whole, not just a portion of the system. 

  • Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

    When a determination of whether there is a motivation to combine references to show obviousness is necessary, the analysis requires specificity and adequate explanation.

  • Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc.

    An offer for sale that originates in a foreign country, but that is directed to an American entity at its place of business in the United States, is an offer for sale made in this country for the purposes of the on-sale bar.

  • DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC

    The omission of a word that was present in a provisional application may be used to inform claim construction of the claim terms of the nonprovisional patent, even if the provisional application was incorporated by reference in the nonprovisional patent.

  • Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Lupin Inc.

    Bioequivalence is not sufficient, on its own, to prove infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by the function-way-result test. Bioequivalence may satisfy the result prong, but an accuser still must prove the accused product performs the same function and works in a similar way as the claimed invention.

  • PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc.

    A district court may impose additional sanctions under its inherent power on top of awarding attorney fees and costs under Section 285.

  • Cytiva Bioprocess R&D AB v. JSR Corp.

    If a property of a claimed composition is inherent, then there is no requirement to show a reasonable expectation of success of achieving the claimed composition when combining prior art references to prove obviousness.