Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding prefatory comments not incorporated into or related to the answer or counterclaim should be stricken
• explaining that contrary Federal Cir- cuit precedent, Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), was based on regulations that are no longer in effect
• rejecting dicta in Molins PLC v. Textgron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1995) that “burying” a reference can be probative of bad faith
• “[A]n applicant cannot be guilty of inequitable conduct if [an allegedly withheld] reference was cited to the examiner.”
• “The Court thus concludes that, under Federal Circuit caselaw and the relevant regulations, Defendant’s [argument that ‘burying’ a reference can be probative of bad faith] is insufficient as a matter of law.”
• “Under Rule 12(f), even where the challenged material is ‘redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous,’ a motion to strike should not be granted ‘unless the presence of the surplusage will prejudice the adverse party. ’ ” (emphasis supplied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).