MAG IAS Holdings v. Rainer Schm�ckle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an accused infringer was entitled to JMOL of no direct infringement where the patentee “[did] not provide all the required claim elements” because a third party provided the cell tower which enabled all of the limitations of the systems claim to be met
• affirming the jury’s verdict that the asserted patent claims were not invalid, but vacating and remanding certain infringement claims for a new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).