Caraco Pharmaceutical Labs, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
United States Supreme Court
566 U.S. 399, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1345 (2012)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to determine whether to grant approval to market new generic drugs. The ANDA process aimed to expedite the release of new generic medications. Because the FDA considered patent infringement in deciding whether to approve an ANDA, brand manufacturers were required to submit use codes describing the scope of their patents. As a policy, the FDA assumed use codes were accurate in deciding whether to approve ANDAs. Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo) (defendant) held a patent claiming the approved use of combining repaglinide with metformin, but the patent did not claim the approved uses of using repaglinide alone or in conjunction with thiazolidinediones. Caraco Pharmaceutical Labs, Ltd. (Caraco) (plaintiff) filed an ANDA seeking to market a generic version of repaglinide to use alone and with thiazolidinediones. Novo filed a patent-infringement claim in federal court against Caraco. While Caraco’s ANDA was pending, Novo amended its use code to state all three approved uses were covered under Novo’s patent. Caraco filed a counterclaim against Novo. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Caraco, and the Federal Circuit reversed. Caraco appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
