Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “Attorney argument is no 7 27 TTABVUE 4 n. 3 (Applicant’s Reply Brief
• “Attorney argument is no 7 27 TTABVUE 4 n. 3 (Applicant’s Reply Brief
• “Attorney argument is no 7 27 TTABVUE 4 n. 3 (Applicant’s Reply Brief
• “Although, as Enzo correctly stated at oral argument, a nonmoving party can defeat a motion for summary judgment by explaining why a party (Gen-Probe) with the burden of proof cannot meet its summary judgment standard, Enzo is mistaken that Gen-Probe has not met that hurdle.”
• “Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”
• “Attorney argument is no 7 27 TTABVUE 4 n. 3 (Applicant’s Reply Brief). 8 Id. The particular “legal authorities” referred to by Applicant as the basis for citing to third- party registrations not of record are In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227 (TTAB 2010

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).