In re M.M., Juvenile

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the burden to establish obviousness, by clear and convincing evidence, remains with the defendant “[a]t all times” (citation omitted)
• indicating that even where the patent in suit is a combination of prior art references, an alleged infringer still needs “to proffer evidence indicating why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention”
• finding no motivation to combine where “doctors were not using the disclosed de- vices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capa- ble of such healing”
• finding no motivation to combine where “doctors were not using the disclosed de- vices and methods to heal wounds with negative pressure because they did not believe that these devices were capa- ble of such healing”
• “[S]ubstantial > evidence supports the jury’s implied factual finding that none of these references disclosed the [limitation at issue].”
• devices using \a seal capable of maintaining negative pressure\ and \draining fluids\ to treat wounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).