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).