''Abbott v. Sandoz'', 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009), was a

US patent law Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limit ...

case argued before the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in case citations, Fed. Cir. or C.A.F.C.) is a United States court of appeals that has special appellate jurisdiction over certain types of specialized cases in the U.S. federal court ...

that established a bright-line ruling regarding claims of patent infringement relating to disagreements over so-called “product-by-process” claims. The case was decided on May 18, 2009.

Background

Abbott Labs Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States. The company was founded by Chicago physician Wallace Calvin Abbott in 1888 to formulate known dr ...

had a patent on a specific drug called Omnicef used to combat ear infections. Lupin Limited had a court rule that a generic form of Omnicef it produced did not infringe on Abbott's patent since their process to make the drug was different. After the court had ruled in Lupin's favor, Abbott appealed and the case was combined with several other legal suits against smaller pharmaceutical companies, and thus was renamed ''Abbott v. Sandoz''. The federal court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Case

For several years, the courts have disagreed on the product-by-process definition. Product-by-process refers to the question of determining if a product is legally different from another if it is created by a different process. Federal courts have offered contradictory resolutions on the subject. The court determined that a patent may limit itself if it specifically defines the process of creation.

Decision

Despite the legal discrepancies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that using a different process in this case did not infringe on Abbott's patent and ruled in Sandoz's favor, along with ruling in favor of the other small pharmaceuticals companies. Since Abbott had not patented all processes to create its drug, it could not protect from the processes being used by others.

Importance

This case further enforces the product-by-process definition, and holds that a patent does not protect from infringement through a different process unless necessarily described. Patent-holders seeking to cover their products entirely must find ways to protect every process to create the same item if they want complete protection from infringement.

References

External links

* {{caselaw source , case = ''Abbott v. Sandoz'', 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) , courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/208706/abbott-laboratories-v-sandoz-inc/ , googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12447317146793002049 , leagle =https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20090518108 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases United States patent case law 2009 in United States case law