Dr. Sakharam D. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol Inc. And Bard Access Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that filing date of patent would be default invention date for purposes of Section 102(a), absent evidence of earlier date of invention
• explaining that a party attempting to'overcome anticipatory 'prior art has the burden to prove an earlier date of invention
• explaining that a party attempting to overcome anticipatory prior art has the burden to prove an earlier date of invention
• stating that the trier of fact can conclude for itself what documents show, aided by testimony about the meaning of the exhibit to one skilled in the art
• rejecting presumption that filing date was date of invention because actual date of invention was established
• identifying bad faith litigation or inequitable conduct as among the circumstances that may render a case exceptional under the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).