Robert M. Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing how Mr. Sinskey fitted the patients with a new kind of lens
• to avoid statutory bar, “it must be shown that the activity was ‘substantially for purposes of experiment’ ”
• “A party cannot create an issue of fact by supplying an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony, without explaining the contradiction or attempting to resolve the disparity.”
• \[A]fter-the-fact testimony of an inventor's subjective 'experimental intent' is entitled to minimal weight.\
• \The patent is directed to an intraocular lens.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).