Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine a term’s plain and ordinary meaning
• finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a party to amend its pleadings in part because the non-moving party was not unduly prejudiced by the amendment
• affirming district court finding that evidence of a duty-bound employee’s knowledge and engagement with a reference and evidence that the reference was highly material satisfied the Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) intent standard
• when a claim is invalidated based on a “deliberately withheld reference, then that reference is necessarily material for [the] purposes of the inequitable conduct inquiry.”
• “To prevail on an inequitable conduct defense, a defendant must establish both the materiality of the withheld reference and the applicant's intent to deceive the PTO.”
• “This clear expression need not be in haec verba but may be inferred from clear limiting descriptions of the invention in the specification or prosecution history.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).