Marks v. McKenzie High School Fact-Finding Team

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that merely mentioning an allegedly invalidating, yet otherwise unexplained, prior art reference is insufficient to survive a summary judgment of no invalidity
• stating that proof of anticipation generally requires “testimony from one skilled in the art” which “explains in detail how each claim is disclosed in the prior art reference”
• “We have consistently interpreted the word ‘or’ to mean that the items in the sequence are alternatives to each other.”
• “These are not technical terms or art, and do not require elaborate interpretation.”
• “Evidence of invalidity must be clear as well as convincing.”
• invalidity cannot be established by conclusory testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).