Besbeas v. Chater

How courts have described this case

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

• “ ‘[I]t would irrational to assume that there could be no relationship between what counsel really thought (as reflected in their private papers) and what [counsel] in fact communicated to the client.’ ”
• “As a defense to Novartis’ charge of willful infringement, Eon relies on a written opinion it received in March 2000 from its patent counsel, Thomas Pontani, Esquire, concluding that it is ‘unlikely’ that Eon is infringing the ‘382 Patent.”
• focusing on waiver rather than alleged infringer’s state of mind
• iquoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1417 (5th ed.1979)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).