Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that concluso-ry statements offered by experts are not evidence
• holding that conclusory statements offered by experts are not evidence
• holding “broad 18 conclusory statements offered by Telemac’s experts are not evidence and are not 19 sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact”
• finding that features were inherent “as evidenced by [the patentee]’s own documents”
• finding no infringement due to restriction built into software program that prevented product from performing task despite fact that software could be modified to perform task and, therefore, infringe
• finding accused product non-infringing because it could not directly place international calls, a claim limitation of the asserted patent, without modifica- tion, namely, employment of an outside carrier that could place international calls

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).