Forrester Environmental Services, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies, 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 forward-looking issues are substantial because they “could result in inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts”
• “[T]he use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement.”
• “Here, as in Gunn, the potential for conflict is purely ‘hypothetical.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).