Utah Medical Products, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not err in amending its claim construction during oral arguments for pretrial motions nearly two years after the original construction
• holding that district court did not err in amending claim 11 construction during oral arguments for pretrial motions nearly two years after original 12 construction
• holding that the district court did not err in amending its claim construction during oral arguments for pretrial motions nearly two years after the original construction
• finding no error in district court’s amendment of claim construction during oral arguments for pretrial motions nearly two years after the original construction
• noting the defendant “attempted to offer expert testimony based on industry license agreements” and some of the plaintiffs license agreements
• finding it proper for a district court to clarify the original intent of its claim construction when changed circumstances, or additional information warrants it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).