Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Limited

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an application was not invalid for written description where the specification contemplated the enantiomers, even though the reaction sequences and examples were racemic and the specific isomeric compounds were not individually described
• holding a claim invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 for claiming subject matter that was “non-overlapping” with the claim from which it depended
• holding a claim invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 for claiming subject matter that was “non- overlapping” with the claim from which it depended
• explaining that “statements made during prosecution of Ja] later, unrelated [U.S.] patent cannot be used to interpret claims of” the patent in suit
• declining to limit term to disclosed embodiment, for reasons including patentee’s description of examples as illustrative
• “[S]tatements made during prosecution of foreign counterparts to the ‘893 patent are irrelevant to claim construction because they were made in response to patentability requirements unique to Danish and Europe- an law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).