CAFC-DCTSeptember 17, 2026·25-1427·Errata issued; the extracted text does not state any change to the judgment.
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
District Court
Holding
The errata makes wording corrections only: it deletes the word “all” on page 2 and changes “all claims” in footnote 1 to “the asserted claims (1, 2, 5, 7–10).” No merits holding or change in disposition is stated in the extracted errata.
Why It Matters
Readers should not treat the underlying opinion, at least based on the corrected language, as addressing claims beyond asserted claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–10.
Full Summary
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. [Errata]
The errata makes wording corrections only: it deletes the word “all” on page 2 and changes “all claims” in footnote 1 to “the asserted claims (1, 2, 5, 7–10).” No merits holding or change in disposition is stated in the extracted errata.
Readers should not treat the underlying opinion, at least based on the corrected language, as addressing claims beyond asserted claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–10.
Errata issued; the extracted text does not state any change to the judgment.
The document is an errata, not a new merits opinion.
The correction narrows language from “all claims” to “the asserted claims (1, 2, 5, 7–10).”
The extracted errata does not identify the underlying patent-law issue or the court’s merits reasoning.
The extracted errata does not state that the disposition changed.
non-precedential
non-precedential
Key Points
- The document is an errata, not a new merits opinion.
- The correction narrows language from “all claims” to “the asserted claims (1, 2, 5, 7–10).”
- The extracted errata does not identify the underlying patent-law issue or the court’s merits reasoning.
- The extracted errata does not state that the disposition changed.
How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order. Read the document itself before relying on the summary. Editorial policy
New to Federal Circuit? See our Federal Circuit page