Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that courts must “be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”
• explaining that “knowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references”
• finding no error when an expert’s failure to use the district court’s exact words regarding claim construction did not change the substance of his testimony or render it inapplicable
• requiring a heightened burden of explanation in an expert report regarding motivation to combine references for a technology involving the detection and classification of hepatitis C genotypes in a biological sample
• reversing entry of JMOL because district court erred in excluding expert’s testimony whose “failure to use the district court’s exact words does not change the substance of his testimony or render it inapplicable”
• reversing entry of JMOL because district court erred in excluding expert’s testimony whose “failure to use the district court’s exact words does not change the substance of his testimony or render it inapplicable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

107 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-05-25· cited 420×
• I4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-03-10· cited 374×
• Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-08-24· cited 184×
• Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-08-20· cited 139×
• Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-04-11· cited 132×
• Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-08-13· cited 119×
• Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-11-21· cited 103×
• Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-01-31· cited 102×
• Fresenius Usa, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-09-10· cited 99×
• Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-12-19· cited 97×
• Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2010-03-11· cited 90×
• Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-06-09· cited 88×
• ACUMED LLC v. Stryker Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-30· cited 83×
• Versata Software, Inc. v. Sap America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-05-01· cited 77×
• Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro Company
  Federal Circuit· 2017-02-16· cited 76×
• Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-11-18· cited 74×
• Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-07-21· cited 72×
• Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-08-15· cited 68×
• Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-12-16· cited 65×
• Duncan Parking Technologies v. Ips Group, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2019-01-31· cited 64×

Cites

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

• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
• 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×
• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2007-04-30· cited 1,310×
• Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-10-16· cited 787×
• Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. De C.V.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-08-30· cited 652×
• Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-03-15· cited 461×
• Mischelle Musser and Michael Musser v. Gentiva Health Services, F/k/a Olsten Health Services
  Seventh Circuit· 2004-02-19· cited 292×
• Joy Technologies, Inc., and A/s Niro Atomizer, Involuntary v. Flakt, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1993-10-06· cited 255×
• Sally Naeem v. McKesson Drug Company and Dan Montreuil
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-04-12· cited 230×
• Dr. Sakharam D. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol Inc. And Bard Access Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-05-03· cited 188×
• Digital Control v. The Charles MacHine Works (Also Known as Ditchwitch)
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-08· cited 180×
• Atd Corporation v. Lydall, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1998-10-06· cited 179×
• J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 165×
• In Re Seagate Technology, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2007-08-20· cited 147×
• Young v. Lumenis, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-06-27· cited 91×
• Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-07-07· cited 75×
• Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford International, Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2004-11-30· cited 71×
• Life Technologies, Inc. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc.,defendant-Appellee
  Federal Circuit· 2000-09-21· cited 68×

Other cases named Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2007-01-03· cited 5×