Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 56 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 Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Anchor | green | “an obviousness determination requires that a skilled artisan would have perceived a reasonable expectation of success in making the invention in light of the prior art.” | 11 |
| 2 | Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | green | “that a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” | 10 |
| 3 | Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. | green | “clear and convincing evidence.” | 9 |
| 4 | Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corporation | green | “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” | 8 |
| 5 | Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated | green | “especially difficult when the prior art on which it relies was before the pto examiner during prosecution of the application.” | 8 |
| 6 | MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc. | green | “to be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” | 7 |
| 7 | Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | green | “whether, if a particular drug were put on the market, it would infringe the relevant patent.” | 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.