Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, 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 expert testimony was required to establish invalidity on grounds of anticipation and obviousness where the subject matter is sufficiently complex to fall beyond the grasp of an ordinary layperson
• holding that a valid Terry stop generally does not require Miranda warnings
• explaining that expert testimony is required where the “subject matter is sufficiently complex to fall beyond the grasp of an ordinary layperson”
• relying on Merck to hold that § 271(e)(1) does not apply to infringe- ment of patented product not eligible to obtain patent extension
• affirming the district court’s requirement of expert testimony to prove invalidity where “th[e] subject matter [wa]s sufficiently complex to fall beyond the grasp of an ordinary layperson”
• “demonstrating an 14 implantable defibrillator at medical conference was ‘reasonably related’ to FDA approval because 15 it facilitated the selection of clinical trial investigators”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).