Tegal Corporation v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc. Tegal Corporation v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc. Tegal Corporation v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the claimed invention could be obvious even if prior art did not teach one of its elements
• explaining that the second prong of the test is more important
• where accused infringer failed to meets its burden on materiality because “it failed to overcome the evidence that the [allegedly undisclosed reference was] cumulative art”
• “Tegal’s understanding was that by withdrawing its damages claim, it would lose its right to a trial by jury.”
• “given Tegal’s interest only in an injunction, it is clear that Tegal would have needed, in eighteenth century England, to bring its case in a court of equity.”
• “[Ijittle analysis is required” on the second prong

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).