Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a patent was adequately enabled “because the patent identifies laser diffraction as a viable measurement technique, and there is no dispute that a skilled artisan would know how to use laser diffraction to measure particle diameter”
• concluding term “fine granules having an average particle diameter of 400 μm or less” meant “fine granules having an average particle diameter of precisely 400 μm or less”
• explaining that the “mere possibility of different results” is insufficient for indefiniteness
• explaining that the “mere possibility of different results” is insufficient for indefiniteness
• explaining that the “mere possibility of different results” is insufficient for indefiniteness
• refusing to read in a limitation because the specification indicated that the inventor knew how to claim such a limitation “when [he] so desired”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).