Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.

52 F.3d 1043, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1565 (1995)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
G
From our private database of 43,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

52 F.3d 1043, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1565 (1995)

Facts

Derek Crookes made a form of ranitidine hydrochloride that could be used for pharmaceutical purposes. A patent on the compound was obtained by Crookes’s employer, Glaxo Inc. (plaintiff). Glaxo brought an infringement action against Novopharm Ltd. (defendant) in federal district court. Evidence showed that Glaxo used a process call azeotroping to formulate the compound and that Glaxo officials knew this process to be the best mode of practicing the invention. However, azeotroping was not disclosed in Glaxo’s patent. Novopharm therefore argued that the patent was invalid because it failed to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention, as required by § 112 of the patent statute. The court found in favor of Glaxo because there was no evidence that the original inventor—Crookes himself—had used the azeotroping process. Novopharm appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 688,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 43,000 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Patent

Key Terms