In re Amarnick

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature corroborated the junior party’s testimony as to actual reduction to practice in an interference proceeding
• “Where a count to a mechanical invention includes a structural feature recited as a positive limitation, conception and reduction to practice of that invention require a contemporaneous recognition of that feature.”
• “Where a count to a mechanical invention includes a structural feature recited as a positive limitation, conception and reduction to practice of that invention require a contemporaneous recognition of that feature.” (emphasis added)
• \[S]ufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration rule.\
• “[Sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration rule.”
• “[Sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).