Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino

How courts have described this case

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

• “Copying requires duplication of features of the patentee’s work based on access to that work, lest all infringement be mistakenly treated as copying.”
• holding that, under § 1.5300
• “[Ijndustry praise ... provides probative and cogent evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected [the claimed invention].”
• “[I]ndustry praise ... provides probative and cogent evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected [the claimed invention].”
• ¶⅞-dustry praise ... provides probative and cogent evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected [the claimed invention].”
• “[I]ndustry praise . . . provides probative and cogent evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected [the claimed invention].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).