Confirm favorite deletion?
Patent Law Keyed to Adelman
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Plaintiff owned the '233 patent and the '716 patent on antihistamines. The '233 patent was marketed as a non-drowsy antihistamine loratadine known as Claritin. When a patient takes Claritin, that patient forms the metabolite DCL, which is the subject matter of Claims 1 and 3 of the '716 patent. The '233 patent is a prior invention to the '716 patent because the '233 patent issued on August 4, 1981 and the earliest priority date of the '716 patent was February 15, 1984. The '233 patent does not specifically reveal DCL or metabolites of loratadine. When the '233 patent expired, Defendant and other manufacturers began marketing generic loratadine. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming patent infringement of '716 because the '716 patent would not expire until 2004. Defendant was granted summary judgment by the District Court when they determined patent '233 anticipated claims 1 and 3 of the '716 patent.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.