INSITE VISION INC. v. SANDOZ, INC.

No. 2014-1065.

783 F.3d 853 (2015)

INSITE VISION INCORPORATED, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SANDOZ, INC., Defendant-Appellant Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Industrial Products S.A., Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2015.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dominick A. Conde, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York, N.Y., argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by David E. De Lorenzi, Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ. Plaintiffs-appellees Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer Inc. also represented by Margaret A. Scoolidge, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York, N.Y.; Dennis C. Aeling, Costa Mesa, CA.

Brian Robert Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Deanne E. Maynard;   David Clarence Doyle,   James Webb Huston,   Mark Andrew Woodmansee, San Diego, CA; Matthew D'Amore, New York, N.Y.

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and LINN, Circuit Judges.


In this Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, Sandoz, Inc. ("Sandoz") appeals the district court's decision in InSite Vision, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 11-3080, 2013 WL 5975015 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2013), which held that Sandoz had not shown that the claims of U.S. Patents No. 6,861,411 (the "'411 patent"); No. 6,239,113 (the "'113...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases