Patrick Marshall v. Brandon Watwood, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that verdict of nonobviousness was not inconsistent with verdict of anticipation by prior public use, despite “legal homily” that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness
• noting that Dunnigan requires a district court to address “all three elements of perjury” and reversing because the district court failed to address materiality and willfulness
• \No precedent eliminates the need for independent factfinding in the second trial before stare decisis applies.\
• evidence of prior litigation “must pass muster, like any other evidence, as relevant and probative of an issue in the second case”
• question is whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the specification
• evidence of prior litigation “must pass muster, like any other evidence, as relevant and probative of an issue in the second case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).