Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Rogers

How courts have described this case

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

• finding publications published within one to six months after the date of the invention relevant to the state of the art at the time of the invention
• granting motion in limine to preclude an expert from testifying about an opinion provided in a supplemental report because the analysis therein “could have and should have been made” in the original expert report
• “Accordingly, ‘[c]ourts distinguish true supplementation (e.g., correcting inadvertent errors or omissions) from gamesmanship, and have therefore repeatedly rejected attempts to avert summary judgment by supplementing an expert report with a new and improved expert report.’”
• “Accordingly, ‘[c]ourts distinguish true supplementation (e.g., correcting inadvertent errors or omissions) from gamesmanship, and have therefore repeatedly rejected attempts to avert summary judgment by supplementing an expert report with a new and improved expert report.’”
• “Accordingly, ‘[c]ourts distinguish true supplementation (e.g., correcting inadvertent errors or omissions) from gamesmanship, and have therefore repeatedly rejected attempts to avert summary judgment by supplementing an expert report with a new and improved expert report.’”
• describing examples of “true supplementation” as “correcting inadvertent errors or omissions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).