General Electric Co. v. Wilkins
The Clear and Convincing evidentiary standard required to rebut the presumption of patent validity will not be met when the key corroborative witness testimony is predicated on the challenging party’s own sequence of events.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation
Parties that purchase patented goods have standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim against the patentee, alleging the patent was obtained by fraud on the PTO.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.
Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.
When a court determines that a patent presents a prima facie case of obviousness, a presumption of invalidity for obviousness is raised. That presumption, however, can be rebutted by strong, objective evidence showing that the patent is nonobvious.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Hor v. Chu
The time period for asserting the defense of laches against an inventorship claim is measured from the date the patent was issued, not from the date the patent application was filed.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Norgren, Inc. v. ITC
The possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not mean an administrative agency's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents