Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
135 S. Ct. 831 (2015)


Facts

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) (plaintiff) owns a patent directed to a manufacturing method for a multiple sclerosis drug. The patent describes the drug’s active ingredient as having a “molecular weight of five to nine kilodaltons.” Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz) (defendant), attempted to market a generic version of the drug. Teva brought a patent infringement suit against Sandoz. Sandoz contended that the patent was invalid because the description of the molecular weight was insufficiently definite, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, because Teva did not explicitly state which of three potential methods was used to calculate the value. After hearing expert testimony from both Teva and Sandoz, the district court determined that the patent met the definiteness requirements and was therefore valid because a skilled artisan would have understood that “molecular weight,” as referred to in the Teva patent, meant molecular weight as calculated by the peak average method. Sandoz appealed. After reviewing each of the district court’s legal and factual determinations de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed, finding that the term “molecular weight” was indefinite. Teva filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Federal Circuit employed the wrong standard of review. The United States Supreme Court granted the petition.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.