2009),[1] was a US patent law case argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that established a bright-line ruling regarding claims of patent infringement relating to disagreements over so-called “product-by-process” claims.
[2][1][3] Abbott Labs had a patent on a specific drug called Omnicef used to combat ear infections.
Lupin Limited had a court rule that a generic form of Omnicef it produced did not infringe on Abbott's patent since their process to make the drug was different.
[2][1][3] Despite the legal discrepancies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that using a different process in this case did not infringe on Abbott's patent and ruled in Sandoz's favor, along with ruling in favor of the other small pharmaceuticals companies.
[2][1][3] This case further enforces the product-by-process definition, and holds that a patent does not protect from infringement through a different process unless necessarily described.