Adenta GmbH v. OrthoArm, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a patent may not be invalidated solely on uncorroborated testimony
• upholding a district court's conclusion that there was sufficient corroboration where the plaintiff provided oral testimony from both interested and disinterested witnesses and documentary evidence
• “Assessing the sufficiency of evi- dence which corroborates a witness’s testimony concerning invalidating activities has been analyzed under the ‘rule of reason’ test, and it is a jury question.”
• “While the court determined that Heiser and Schendell were clearly interested parties, as they were named parties to the suit, their testimony was corroborated by the testimony of [non-interested parties] Voudouris, Russell, and Tuneberg.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).