DNJ reversed by CAFC in Warner-Lambert v. Teva
The CAFC observed that the district court (DNJ) did not appear to address Teva's enablement defense. The CAFC also noted "we are being asked to review an incomplete record." Teva got a remand on the issue.
Note that footnote 11 deals with the issue of waiver, a big issue in the Ericsson v. Harris case.
The case should be read for its discussion of inequitable conduct. On inequitable conduct, the CAFC cited Molins v. Textron, 48 F.3d 1172. Although Warner-Lambert prevailed on inequitable conduct (ie, no inequitable conduct found), there was deposition testimony by one of the inventors that the inventors decided not to disclose the art in question to their patent attorney. Later, the inventor testified: I was mixed up with the dates at the time.
Teva pushed the case Critikon v. Becton Dickinson, 120 F.3d 1253.