Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• considering Teva’s strong evidence of obviousness alongside BMS’s arguments relating to secondary considerations of nonobviousness
• “To establish obviousness in cases involving new chemical compounds, the accused infringer must identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound.”
• “While secondary considerations must be taken into ac- count, they do not necessarily control the obviousness de- termination.”
• “While secondary considerations must be taken into ac- count, they do not necessarily control the obviousness de- termination.”
• “While secondary considerations must be taken into ac- count, they do not necessarily control the obviousness de- termination.”
• “While a ‘marked superiority’ in an expected property may be enough in some circumstances to render a compound pa- tentable, a ‘mere difference in degree’ is insufficient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).