Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/s, Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. And Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the failure to describe a specific material to be used in practicing the patent showed lack of enablement
• holding that if an al- leged infringer “raises a ‘substantial question’ concerning validity, enforceability, or infringement (i.e., asserts a de- fense that [the patentee] cannot show ‘lacks substantial merit’)[,] the preliminary injunction should not issue”
• stating that “[flossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure”
• concluding undue experimentation was needed based, in part, on the fact that the method was not used to make the claimed product for nearly a year
• stating that “[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement”
• “In other words, if Novo raises a ‘substantial question’ concerning validity ... (i.e., asserts a defense that Genentech cannot show ‘lacks substantial merit’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).