7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Anchor | green | “in the absence of a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” | 5 |
| 2 | Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. | green | “the reasonable expectation of success requirement re- fers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” | 4 |
| 3 | Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC | green | “the motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” | 3 |
| 4 | E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. | green | “the normal de- sire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is al- ready generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages,” | 3 |
| 5 | Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | green | “a prima facie case . . . sufficient to survive summary judg- ment” | 3 |
| 6 | Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. | green | “the rea- sonable-expectation-of-success analysis must be tied to the scope of the claimed invention. . . . teva was required to prove a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the specific invention claimed, a 600 mg dosage.” | 3 |
| 7 | Natera, Inc. v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc. | green | “if a skilled ar- tisan would reasonably consider” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.