Glaxo, Inc., and Glaxo Group Limited v. Novopharm, Ltd.

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 patentee still carries the burden to prove that the product a generic drug maker ultimately will put on the market would likely infringe the patent
• holding that, “where the subject matter is a compound capable of existing in multiple crystalline forms, or mixtures thereof, the ultimate question of infringement is not so simple”
• noting that district court “properly considered the ANDA itself, the materials submitted by Novopharm to the FDA, and other pertinent evidence” in conducting its infringement analysis
• noting that § 271(e) changes the result in Roche
• describing infringement actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), prior to a launch and “based solely upon the filing of an ANDA” and “focused on the product that is ultimately to be sold”
• “The relevant inquiry is whether patentee has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged infringer will likely market an infringing product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).