Opinion ID: 1040588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Issues Regarding ’667 Patent

Text: Given our conclusion regarding § 102(b), it is unnecessary for us to reach the parties’ other arguments regarding the asserted claims of the ’667 patent. That is, Appellants’ arguments that the asserted claims would 8 Because our decision does not depend on Skrin- ska’s testimony that he used K-80 capsules in a clinical trial, we need not and do not disturb the district court’s credibility finding on that point. That Skrinska received vials, that the formulation of K-80 was fully disclosed, and that Skrinska tested the composition of the vials was fully corroborated and the trial court did not find to the contrary. 20 PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS have been obvious under § 103, are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, or are not infringed are moot.