Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting such a construction as “because the single claimed direction ‘forward’ would then encompass two directions at right angles to each other”
• “obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).