Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the specification disclaims conventional top air drying where, inter alia, “the specification repeatedly disparages conventional top air drying because such drying does not produce uniform films, the central object of the claimed invention”
• upholding district court’s decision to reject Rule 59 argument that the party “knew of yet failed to raise”
• “Even where different patents are asserted between two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from bringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same product of infringing essentially the same patent claims.”
• “Even where different patents are asserted between two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from bringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same product of infringing essentially the same patent claims.” (citation omitted)
• “Even where different patents are asserted between two suits, claim preclusion bars a patentee from bringing successive suits accusing the defendant’s same product of infringing essentially the same patent claims.” (citation omitted)
• “And as in the DRL case, the court found that Alvogen’s film manufacturing process dries the films primarily from the top and 11 thus does not meet the drying limitation and does not infringe the asserted claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2021-03-01· cited 71×
• Monzo v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
  Superior Court of Delaware· 2020-05-13

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
  Supreme Court· 1948-03-08· cited 9,383×
• Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
  Supreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 3,371×
• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2007-04-30· cited 1,310×
• U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership
  Supreme Court· 1994-11-08· cited 1,229×
• Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
  Supreme Court· 2011-06-09· cited 825×
• Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2014-06-02· cited 763×
• Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2015-01-20· cited 634×
• Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1983-07-25· cited 538×
• Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-03-14· cited 465×
• Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-03-22· cited 436×
• United States Ex Rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.
  Third Circuit· 2014-10-20· cited 340×
• Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-03-04· cited 309×
• PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-04-11· cited 217×
• Mahn v. Harwood
  Supreme Court· 1884-12-01· cited 216×
• Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International
  Federal Circuit· 2017-01-05· cited 214×
• Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. And Mark Frater
  Federal Circuit· 2002-03-28· cited 139×
• Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-07-02· cited 127×
• Randall Mfg. v. Rea
  Federal Circuit· 2013-10-30· cited 94×
• Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-08· cited 93×