Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. And North American Lighting, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC and Jens Ole Sorensen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because defendant did not object to the jury’s instructions on a claim term, it failed to preserve its rights to object to the court’s claim construction
• holding that where an alleged in-fringer failed to articulate how a prior art reference anticipates the patent, it has not presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find anticipation “even when the reference has been submitted into evidence”
• holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it “failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims”
• holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it “failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that 2008-1306, -1331 18 reference met the limitations of the claims”
• holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it “failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that 2008-1306, -1331 18 reference met the limitations of the claims”
• using the same analysis to consider whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of anticipation and obviousness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).