This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The inventors of the '741 patent were specialists in drug and ear treatments. Inventor Sato was a university professor specializing in otorhinolaryngology. Inventor Handa was a clinical development department manager at P, involved with new drug development and clinical trials. Inventor Kitahara was a research scientist at D engaged in the research and development of antibiotics. The compound they created was ofloxacin. It is used to treat ear infections without damage to hearing. D filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to manufacture a generic ofloxacin ear drop. D included a P IV certification that the '741 patent was invalid and/or not infringed. P sued D for infringement. The court concluded that the '741 patent was not invalid and that D infringed the '741 patent. The court found that the ordinary person skilled in the art pertaining to the '741 patent would be a pediatrician or general practitioner and that the patent was not obvious to someone skilled in the art. D appealed contending that the court had not properly defined a person having ordinary skill in the art. D argues that one having ordinary skill in the relevant art is properly defined as 'a person engaged in developing new pharmaceuticals, formulations and treatment methods, or a specialist in ear treatments such as an otologist, otolaryngologist, or otorhinolaryngologist who also has training in pharmaceutical formulations.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.