Sensonics, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Aerosonic Corp., and Herbert J. Frank

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding case to district court for consideration of whether parties’ conduct was so vexatious that case may be deemed exceptional
• affirming finding of inducement where district court disbelieved statement of founder that he lacked control to discontinue production of infringing products after he became aware of patentee’s rights
• “[TJhe district court did not discuss whether there were actions of bad faith sufficient to meet the criterion of ‘exceptional case’ and to warrant the award of attorney fees.”
• where defendant in patent infringement action failed to retain production records during litigation period, proper for district court to draw strong adverse inference records would have been unfavorable to defendant
• “The Court is attracted to the ‘convenience factor’ argument [made by Bitmanagement]. However, yet again, the Plaintiff has failed to provide the cost of convenience in its damages’ calculations.”
• “Although Ae-rosonic points to the simplicity of this adjustment mechanism, simplicity does not establish obviousness; indeed, simplicity may represent a significant and unobvious advance over the complexity of prior de vices.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).