Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical, 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 the party challenging jury instructions must \demonstrate . . . that the requested instruction was proper \
• holding that a party challenging jury instructions \has a twofold task [and] must both prove the jury instructions read in their entirety were incorrect or incomplete as given and then demonstrate that the suggested instruction could have cured the error\
• explaining that we have deferred to regional circuit law more readily \when there is existing and expressed uniformity among the circuits\
• considering whether the application of Federal Circuit law would require the district court to \serve[ ] two masters\
• observing that \Biodex is technically correct in asserting that the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel is 'irrelevant' to determination of literal claim scope\ but upholding the district court because prosecution history is relevant to claim interpretation
• “[O]ur practice has been to defer to regional circuit law when the precise issue involves an interpretation of the [Rules] or the local rules of the district court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).