Docket nos. 13-854 Date decided January 20, 2015 | Dates 15 Oct 2014 – 20 Jan 2015 Location United States of America | |
Full case name Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Citations 574 U.S. ___ (more)
,574 S.Ct. __, __ L.Ed._d ___, ___ U.S.P.Q. ___ Prior history See 723 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) , vacated and remanded; 810 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D. NY), reversed Majority Breyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan Dissent Thomas, joined by Alito Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Phillips v AWH Corp, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Inte, DDR Holdings v Hotelscom, Bilski v Kappos, Holt v Hobbs | ||
Teva pharmaceuticals usa inc v sandoz inc oral argument october 15 2014
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark patent Supreme Court case disputing over the Copaxone patent. The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.
Contents
Supreme court dogs teva pharmaceuticals usa inc v sandoz inc realanimalsfakepaws pawjustice
Facts and procedural history
The case originated in the Southern District of New York, where Sandoz sued to invalidate Teva's patent on a drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the Markman hearing, Sandoz argued that a claim was fatally indefinite for failing to identify which of three possible meanings a particular claim term, related to the molecular weight of a component of the drug, should be interpreted to have. The district court judge held that the claim term was definite, and that a "person of ordinary skill in the art" would interpret the term "molecular weight" to mean the "peak average molecular weight", that is, the weight of the molecule most prevalent in the mixture. In doing so, the judge relied in part on expert witness testimony.
Sandoz appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the claim under a 'de novo' standard, decided that the claim term was fatally indefinite, and hence that the patent was invalid.
Teva appealed.