Oxford Gene Technology Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• excluding portions of expert’s opinion on the issues of anticipation and obviousness where expert did not “perform an element-by-element comparison of each claim to each prior art reference”
• regarding a report from an expert opining that the claimed invention was obvious
• “A party can only elicit expert testimony from someone who has specialized knowledge or training sufficient to qualify him or her to opine on an issue within their field of expertise, and the expert’s opinion must be confined to that field.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).