Matthews v. Junious

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that for purposes of obviousness, the relevant teachings can be \found in any number of sources\
• noting that the “burden of proof never shifts to the patentee to prove validity” (citation omitted)
• emphasizing that “the discov- ery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious”
• holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art
• collecting cases and explaining that “obviousness cannot be avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as there was a reasonable probability of success”
• “Even if Pfizer showed that amlodipine besylate exhibits unexpectedly superior results, this secondary consideration does not overcome the strong showing of obviousness in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).