Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
339 F.3d 1373 (2003)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Schering Corp. (“Schering”) (plaintiff) held the ‘233 and ‘716 patents related to antihistamines. The ‘233 patent covered loratadine, the active component of the non-drowsy drug Claritin. The later-issued ‘716 patent covered a metabolite of loratadine called DCL, also a non-drowsy antihistamine. When an individual ingests a loratadine, a chemical conversion takes place during the digestion process which created the metabolite, DCL. The ‘233 patent was issued nearly six years prior to the issuance of the ‘716 patent, and thus was considered to be prior art. The ‘233 patent did not expressly disclose DCL or metabolites. Upon expiration of the ‘233 patent, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Geneva”) (defendant) and others began manufacturing and marketing generic versions of Claritin. Schering brought suit against Geneva and others for infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The district court concluded that the ‘233 patent inherently anticipated claims 1 and 3 of the ‘716 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and granted Geneva’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity. Schering appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
Dissent (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
