Skip to main content
Federal Circuit· 3/2/2010

Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A.

Citations

  • 596 F.3d 1355
  • 93 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1917
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266
  • 2010 WL 698875

How courts have described this case

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

  • suggesting that plaintiff's expert \could have reviewed the prior art references cited in the office actions and discussed their effect on patentability\
  • extending jurisdiction where the plaintiff would have to prove that, but for her attorney’s missed patent application filing deadline, her invention would have been patentable
  • extending jurisdiction where the plaintiff would have to prove that, but for her attorney's missed patent application filing deadline, her invention would have been patentable
  • requiring plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the PTO would have issued a patent on the invention but for attorney negligence in preparing and filing the application
  • requiring plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the PTO would have issued a patent on the invention but for attorney negligence in preparing and filing the application
  • “an expert’s naked conclusion is insufficient to survive summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Newman, Bryson, Moore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.