Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. v. Conrad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant “cannot insulate itself from liability for enhanced damages by creating an (ultimately unsuccessful) invalidity defense for trial”
• holding that an ac-knowledgement by defendant that “The need is clear!” is sufficient to establish evidence of a long felt but unresolved need in an industry
• stating that “proof of nexus is not limited to only when objective evidence is tied to the supposedly ‘new’ feature(s)”
• “Demonstrating that an invention has commercial value, that it is commercially successful, weighs in favor of its non-obviousness.”
• acknowledging that patent markings in a small, competitive industry provided some evidence suggesting knowledge when the plaintiff also produced internal documents from the defendant showing that it was aware of the patents at the time of infringement
• explaining the importance of “assessing the infringer’s knowledge at the time of the challenged conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).