Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that MWV’s evidence of teaching away did not come from polymer scientists, but from marketing and business executives, and presenting documents that Valois’s and Rexam’s engineers did not perceive a carcinogen risk
• stating that the analysis for determining the location of an offer for sale should focus on “the location of the future sale that would occur pursuant to the offer”
• “Viewing the objective evidence of nonobviousness in a light most favorable to Transocean, we cannot hold that the claims would have been obvious as a matter of law.”
• reversing summary judgment of obviousness be- cause district court failed to consider objective evidence of nonobviousness
• reversing summary judgment of obviousness be- cause district court failed to consider objective evidence of nonobviousness
• reversing summary judgment where “factual issues regarding undue experimentation . . . preclude summary judgment of no enablement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).