Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the district court \rejected Roche's contention that ... urinary EPO anticipated [the claim at issue] because at least some of the recombinant EPO would be structurally indistinguishable from urinary EPO\
• declining to treat the applications at issue as divisional applications when the applicant indicated that the applications were continuation applications in a PTO form
• affirming the district court's judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting where the trial evidence supported a finding of no reasonable expectation of success
• referring to functional differences between the prior-art native protein and claimed recombinant protein that formed the basis of the district court's finding of no anticipation, including the recombinant protein's \ability to be mass produced\
• describing the different analyses of infringement and validity for product-by-process limitations
• describing the different analyses of infringement and validity for product-by-process limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).