Fleming v. Escort Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the corroboration requirement “is a flexible, rule-of-reason de- mand for independent evidence that, as a whole, makes credible the testimony of the purported prior inventor”
• stating that error includes “deficient understandings” and choices that rest on “cognizable false or deficient under- standing of fact or law” but not simply a “now-regretted choice”
• explaining that the corroboration requirement “is a flexible, rule-of-reason de- mand for independent evidence that, as a whole, makes credible the testimony of the purported prior inventor”
• finding sufficient corroboration although \none of the corroborating evidence constitute[d] definitive proof of [the inventor's] account or disclose[d] each claim limitation as written\ because \the corroboration requirement has never been so demanding\
• “[N]one of the corroborating evidence . . . discloses each claim limitations as written. But the corroboration requirement has never been so demanding.”
• “Errors are not limited to slips of the pen but encompass—and most often are—deliberate drafting choices. Not all choices qualify . . . .” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).