top of page
Search

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

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page