Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \a patent does not need to guarantee that the invention works for a claim to be enabled\ and that \[t]here is no requirement that the disclosure contain either examples or an actual reduction to practice\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• reversing the district court’s finding of invalidity for lack of enablement because defendant failed to provide evidence that established the person of ordinary skill would need to engage in “undue experimentation” in order to practice the asserted claims
• a court should not render judgment with respect to claims referenced in a complaint, but not raised in a pretrial statement, or litigated at trial
• “Whether a claim satisfies the en-ablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is a question of law that we review tvithout deference, although the determination may be based on underlying factual findings, which we review for clear error.”
• \The scope of any judgment should conform to the issues that were actually litigated.\
• “[t]he scope of any judgment should conform to the issues that were actually litigated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).