Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming infringement verdict under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) and explaining that distribution of “engineering manual ... replete with examples” of infringing use-was substantial evidence of inducement
• offering a nine-factor test to determine whether a patent infringer was operating in bad faith
• affirming striking of “expert opinion evidence as irrelevant because it was based on an impermissible claim construction”
• noting that, “[i]n order to enable the claims of a patent pursuant to § 112, the patent specification must teach those of 22 ordinary skill in the art ‘how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation’”
• refusing to reweigh a district court’s credibility findings in an inequitable conduct appeal
• approving the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony based on an impermissible construction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).