Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.

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).