Federal Circuit· 8/8/2012

Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.

Citations

687 F.3d 1362
103 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1737
2012 WL 3224040
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16503

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “the concentrations recited in the . . . patent’s dependent claims must necessarily meet claim 1’s limitations of therapeutically effective for treating allergic eye disease”
holding a prior art reference disclosing a range of concentrations expressly disclosed a particular concentration within that range
stating that the asserted claim language \does not impose any additional requirement because the [asserted patent] itself defines mast cell stabilization as a property that is necessarily present\
noting that “a de- pendent claim narrows the claim from which it depends”
relying on inherency where the claims recited “a property that is necessarily pre- sent” in the prior art
analyzing inherency based on the disclo- sure of the “patent itself”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Prost, Moore, O'Malley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.