Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that reissue was not permitted where a patentee failed to provide an adequate “explanation of what his error was and how and why it occurred” (emphasis omitted)
• concluding that reissue was not permitted where a patentee failed to provide an adequate “explanation of what his error was and how and why it occurred” (emphasis omitted)
• emphasizing that the fact that a patent is “defective” does not “give[ ] rise to an inference of ‘oversight’ ”
• emphasizing that the fact that a patent is “defec- tive” does not “give[] rise to an inference of ‘oversight’’’
• stating that “the proof of gross negligence may be circumstantial evidence which gives rise to an inference of intent to mislead in some instances”
• emphasizing that a party seeking reissue must establish “inadver- tent error in conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).