Circuit Check Inc. v. Qxq Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding testimony that third parties were \worried\ or \surprised\ was sufficient to establish skepticism
• explaining that the jury “was entitled to weigh th[e] testimony” presented at trial
• “To be con- sidered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.”
• “Prior art is analogous ... if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to solve.”
• “If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that refer- ence in an obviousness rejection.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).