Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that re- buttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”
• reasoning that re- buttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”
• holding the Administrative Procedure Act precludes an agency from changing theories “midstream” without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change and an opportunity to respond
• holding that a declaration appended to a reply brief “fairly respond[ed] only to arguments made in . . . [the patent owner]’s response,” as required by § 42.23(b), and that the patent owner had “a meaningful opportunity to respond,” as required by the APA
• explaining that “the Board’s rules and practices establish standards bearing similarities to those often applied in district-court litigation” and that the Board “has broad discretion to regulate the presentation of evidence”
• noting that certain explanatory evidence was not “necessary to the prima facie case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).