Federal Circuit -- ASTRAZENECA V. AUROBINDO

Drug patent valid, as although the solution might have been an obvious one to try, it would have required a venture into a new and promising field of experimentation

No inequitable conduct, as although the withheld citation was possessed and discussed,  likely inference of malice is lacking.

Reissue was valid, as the lawyers had an inadequate grasp of the law. 

[When reading a patent case, MB can relate to that.  Again, entertainment purposes only.]

US based Hatch-Waxman ANDA claimant has liability on the claim, given the identity of interests with the foreign subsidiary for whom the claim was ostensibly filed.

Concurrence:  US based ANDA claimant has liability because it intends to actively engage in the subsequent production of the generic.

Dissent - Reissue was bad given lack of due diligence


ASTRAZENECA V. AUROBINDO