Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \Statements in a package insert that encourage infringing use of a drug product are alone sufficient to establish intent to encourage direct infringement.\
• “Statements in a package insert that encourage infringing use of a drug product are alone sufficient to establish intent to encourage direct infringement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2010-11-09· cited 97×
• Eli Lilly and Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
  D. New Jersey· 2009-12-31· cited 4×
• Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2017-10-13· cited 4×
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2017-04-03· cited 1×

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 3,226×
• Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-04-05· cited 2,940×
• Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-07-25· cited 2,428×
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1984-01-17· cited 978×
• Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medrad, Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2004-02-11· cited 685×
• Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. De C.V.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-08-30· cited 652×
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
  Supreme Court· 2005-06-27· cited 539×
• Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corporation and Brunswick Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1999-04-27· cited 335×
• Multiform Desiccants, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Medzam, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1998-01-15· cited 323×
• Dsu Medical Corporation v. Jms Co., Ltd
  Federal Circuit· 2006-12-13· cited 310×
• Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. Bp Chemicals Limited and Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-03-19· cited 268×
• Rexnord Corporation v. The Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-11-15· cited 249×
• Glaxo, Inc., and Glaxo Group Limited v. Novopharm, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-04-04· cited 213×
• Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc. (Formerly Known as Chemque Canada, Ltd.) and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2002-11-04· cited 213×
• Energy Capital Corp. (As General Partner of Energy Capital Partners Limited Partnership) v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2002-08-14· cited 191×
• Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Environmental International, L.C.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-08-17· cited 185×
• Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-05-18· cited 174×
• Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Inc., and United Telephone Company of Florida, and Sprint Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-02-11· cited 170×
• Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-09-01· cited 165×