![Prof. Lisa Ouellette Explains SCOTUS Patent Case Teva v. Sandoz - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School Prof. Lisa Ouellette Explains SCOTUS Patent Case Teva v. Sandoz - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School](https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Stanford9.20.14_438-300x199.jpg)
Prof. Lisa Ouellette Explains SCOTUS Patent Case Teva v. Sandoz - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School
![Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. United States Pharmaceutical industry Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, united states, logo, united States, pharmaceutical Industry png | PNGWing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. United States Pharmaceutical industry Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, united states, logo, united States, pharmaceutical Industry png | PNGWing](https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/245/423/png-transparent-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc-united-states-pharmaceutical-industry-teva-pharmaceutical-industries-united-states-logo-united-states-pharmaceutical-industry.png)
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. United States Pharmaceutical industry Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, united states, logo, united States, pharmaceutical Industry png | PNGWing
![Teva v. Sandoz: Supreme Court Rules That, In Reviewing Patent Claim Constructions on Appeal, Factual Determinations Derived From Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Given “Clearly Erroneous” Deference - Workman Nydegger Teva v. Sandoz: Supreme Court Rules That, In Reviewing Patent Claim Constructions on Appeal, Factual Determinations Derived From Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Given “Clearly Erroneous” Deference - Workman Nydegger](https://www.wnlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/Todd-David-5-280x340.jpg)
Teva v. Sandoz: Supreme Court Rules That, In Reviewing Patent Claim Constructions on Appeal, Factual Determinations Derived From Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Given “Clearly Erroneous” Deference - Workman Nydegger
![Attorney Carter G. Phillips, representing generic drug maker Mylan Pharmaceuticals, departs the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, after arguments in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Justices seem Attorney Carter G. Phillips, representing generic drug maker Mylan Pharmaceuticals, departs the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, after arguments in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Justices seem](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2N3T00B/attorney-carter-g-phillips-representing-generic-drug-maker-mylan-pharmaceuticals-departs-the-supreme-court-in-washington-wednesday-oct-15-2014-after-arguments-in-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc-justices-seem-divided-as-it-considers-a-high-stakes-patent-dispute-between-rival-pharmaceutical-companies-over-the-worlds-best-selling-multiple-sclerosis-treatment-a-case-that-threatens-to-cut-into-the-4-billion-a-year-profits-that-israel-based-teva-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-earns-selling-the-drug-copaxone-teva-claims-the-us-court-of-appeals-for-the-federal-circuit-w-2N3T00B.jpg)
Attorney Carter G. Phillips, representing generic drug maker Mylan Pharmaceuticals, departs the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, after arguments in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Justices seem
![Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz: Supreme Court Sides with Teva in Patent Case, Holds That Appeals Court Must Review Factual Findings Underlying Claim Construction for “Clear Error” – Policy & Medicine Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz: Supreme Court Sides with Teva in Patent Case, Holds That Appeals Court Must Review Factual Findings Underlying Claim Construction for “Clear Error” – Policy & Medicine](https://www.policymed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/6a00e5520572bb883401b8d0c4e638970c-800wi.png)