Abbadessa v. Sprint

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding expert’s opinions were unreliable where he failed to address the extent to which five of the six patents contributed to the royalty rate in a comparable license, while still opining that excluding those five patents would have only resulted in a 25% discount
• holding expert’s opinions were unreliable where he failed to address the extent to which five of the six patents contributed to the royalty rate in a comparable license, while still opining that excluding those five patents would have only resulted in a 25% discount
• holding expert’s opinions were unreliable where he failed to address the extent to which five of the six patents contributed to the royalty rate in a comparable license, while still opining that excluding those five patents would have only resulted in a 25% discount
• wherein the Federal Circuit said that silence as to an agreement directed to one of the asserted patents was “troubling and [made the expert’s] opinion unreliable”
• “Embodiments in the specification—even if there is only one embodiment— cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”
• “Embodiments in the specification – even if there is only one embodiment – cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).