| 词条 | Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |ArgueDate=October 15 |ArgueYear=2014 |DecideDate=January 20 |DecideYear=2015 |FullName=Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |USVol=574 |USPage=___ |Docket=13-854 |ParallelCitations=135 S. Ct. 831; 190 L. Ed. 2d 719; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4897; 83 U.S.L.W. 4055; 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1269 |Prior=810 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20110831a36 578] (S.D.N.Y. 2011); 876 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvfdco130305000062 295] (S.D.N.Y. 2012); affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 723 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20130726110 1363] (Fed. Cir. 2013); stay denied, 134 S.Ct. 1621 (2014); cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 1761 (2014) |Subsequent=On remand, 789 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150618145 1335] (Fed. Cir. 2015) |Holding=When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review. |SCOTUS=2010–2016 |Majority=Breyer |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |Dissent=Thomas |JoinDissent=Alito |LawsApplied=F.R.C.P. 52(a)(6) }}Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015),[1] is a landmark patent Supreme Court case disputing over the Copaxone patent.[2][3] The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.[2][3][1] Facts and procedural historyThe case originated in the Southern District of New York, where Sandoz sued to invalidate Teva's patent on a drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the Markman hearing, Sandoz argued that a claim was fatally indefinite for failing to identify which of three possible meanings a particular claim term, related to the molecular weight of a component of the drug, should be interpreted to have. The district court judge held that the claim term was definite, and that a "person of ordinary skill in the art" would interpret the term "molecular weight" to mean the "peak average molecular weight", that is, the weight of the molecule most prevalent in the mixture.[4] In doing so, the judge relied in part on expert witness testimony. Sandoz appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the claim under a 'de novo' standard, decided that the claim term was fatally indefinite, and hence that the patent was invalid.[5] Teva appealed. References1. ^1 {{ussc|name=Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.|volume=574|year=2015|docket=13-854}}. 2. ^1 {{Bluebook website|title= Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |publisher=SCOTUSblog |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc/ |access-date=July 4, 2018 }} 3. ^1 {{Bluebook website|first=Lyle |last=Denniston |title=New dispute over Copaxone patent |publisher=SCOTUSblog |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/new-dispute-over-copaxone-patent/ |date=January 26, 2015 |access-date=July 4, 2018 }} 4. ^{{cite court |litigants=Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |vol=810 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=578 |pinpoint= |court=S.D.N.Y. |date=2011 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20110831a36 |accessdate=2018-07-04 |quote=}} 5. ^{{cite court |litigants=Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. |vol=723 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1363 |pinpoint= |court=Fed. Cir. |date=2013 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20130726110 |accessdate=2018-07-04 |quote=}} External links
| case = Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., {{Ussc|574|___|2015|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2771248/teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc/ | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=745501008375680315 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/13-854/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-854 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) | other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdf 5 : Multiple sclerosis|United States patent case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|2015 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。