Intouch Technologies, Inc. v. Vgo Communications, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing obviousness determination where expert “did not explain what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place these pieces together”
• quot- ing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
• “We do not imply that a defend- ant must proffer an expert on objective indicia of nonobvi- ousness before the trier of fact may reject such evidence.”
• “We do not imply that a defend- ant must proffer an expert on objective indicia of nonobvi- ousness before the trier of fact may reject such evidence.”
• “While [expert] testimony was proffered, the jury was free to reject it.”
• defendant’s expert “failed to provide the necessary ‘articulated reasoning with some rational under- pinning’ to support a conclusion of invalidity based on [the proposed] combinations.” (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).