top of page

Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)

Updated: Jan 25, 2020

District court did not err in finding a limitation inherently present in the prior art. Extrinsic evidence can be used to show what is 'necessarily present' in a prior art embodiment even if the extrinsic evidence is not itself prior art. Also, if a property of a composition is in fact inherent, there is no question of a reasonable expectation of success in achieving it.


Moreover, "[i]t is well-settled that the inclusion of an inherent, but undisclosed, property of a composition does not render a claim to the composition nonobvious."


Read the case here.


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Commenting on this post isn't available anymore. Contact the site owner for more info.

All rights reserved © 2025 Quantum Intellectual Property Law PLLC

bottom of page