Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determining the litigation was “‘reasonably foreseeable’ to [the alleged spoliator] no later than the date asserted for ‘work product’ in its privilege log”
• affirming district court’s finding “that Abbott Laboratories and ALI had exclusive rights to the patented product in the United States, based on Abbott Laboratories’ ownership of the NDA and the relationships and agreements among the Plaintiffs”
• “[I]n the medical arts potential solutions are less likely to be genuinely predictable, as compared with other arts such as the mechanical devices in KSR.”
• ex- plaining that district court’s provision for an accounting of any additional damages that may accrue if the decision is affirmed on appeal did not negate finality of the judgment
• “Glenmark also argues that later-discovered bene- fits cannot be considered in an obviousness analysis . . . . That is incorrect; patentability may consider all of the characteristics possessed by the claimed invention, when- ever those characteristics become manifest.”
• “No ‘magic words’ are needed to confer final judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).