Gambro Lundia Ab v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the accused infringer’s “recognition of the importance of this advance is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.”
• “To show derivation, the party asserting invalidity must prove both prior conception of the invention by another and communication of that conception to the patentee.”
• “To show derivation, the party asserting invalidity must prove both prior conception of the invention by another and communication of that conception to the patentee.”
• “The prominence of the patented technology in . . . advertising creates an inference that links the . . . invention to this success.”
• “A reference which merely replicates references already before the examiner, however, is not material.”
• “absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).