Matter of Malone

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting “as a matter of law” claim of 21 unenforceability based on inequitable conduct alleged to have occurred three years after 22 patent issued, and where such conduct concerned allegedly “interrrelated” patents for 23 different inventions
• “Generally, particular limitations or embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims.”
• final judgment retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal
• if Commerce makes a choice between “two fairly conflicting views,” the court may not substitute its judgment even if its view would have been different had the matter been before it de novo”
• if Commerce makes a choice be- tween “two fairly conflicting views,” the court may not substitute its judgment even if its view would have been different “had the matter been before it de novo”
• if Commerce makes a choice be- tween “two fairly conflicting views,” the court may not substitute its judgment even if its view would have been different “had the matter been before it de novo”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).