Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2011-1619
| Decision Date | 01 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2011-1619,Appeal No. 2011-1635,Appeal No. 2011-1620,Appeal No. 2011-1639 |
| Parties | ALLERGAN, INC. v. SANDOZ INC., ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., ALCON, INC., AND FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD. AND APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP. AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Precedential Opinion
Please make the following changes:
On page 4, line 30, change "timolol" to --brimonidine-- and on line 31 change "brimonidine" to --timolol--.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Viatech Tech. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 14-cv-1226 (RGA)
...would have been motivated to combine the prior art teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Plaintiff moves for summary judgment because it argues Defendant's obviousness case fails in two ways. First, Plain......
-
Teva Pharms. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
...invention pertains.” “Obviousness ... is a legal conclusion based on underlying facts.” Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, at 1290, 2013 WL 1810852, at *4 (Fed.Cir. May 1, 2013). “The underlying factual considerations in an obviousness analysis include the scope and content of th......