Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. Klm Laboratories, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in the context of the equitable defense of inequitable conduct, “a disputed finding of intent to mislead or to deceive is one for the judge to resolve, not the jury”
• holding “ ‘subjective intent ... unavailing without objective evidence to support that contention’ ” (citation omitted)
• stating that “[t]his issue of [inequitable conduct] is not mooted by our decision holding that the patent is invalid in view of KLM’s motion for attorney fees”
• discussing the importance of communicating with customers the experimental nature of orthotic devices placed in the customer's shoes
• rejecting argument that intent 19 element of inequitable conduct is an issue to be resolved by the jury and holding “[a] patentee has 20 no right to a jury trial respecting the factual element of culpable intent as part of the defense of 21 inequitable conduct”
• “assertion of experimental sales, at a minimum, requires that customers must be made aware of the experimentation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).