Merrill Hebert v. Lisle Corporation, Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that letters sent to inventor reflecting that others had invented the same technology were not prior art and were therefore immaterial
• noting the court’s gatekeeping authority to preclude 5 incorrect statements of law that were “announced by a patent law expert witness”
• declining to decide applicability of prosecution history estoppel without development of the evidence
• “Incorrect statements of law are no more admissible through “experts” than are falsifiable scientific theories.”
• “any dispute as to the meaning of claim terms is the province of the court, not the jury”
• expert’s “incorrect statement of law” regarding patent issue led to reversal of district court judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).