Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• \While there is some discussion among the courts as to whether § 242(g) was effective on September 30
• holding that a \district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting inventor testimony to factual testimony that did not require expert opinion\ because the witnesses \had not previously provided expert reports or been qualified as ... expert[s]\
• “[W]e review whether . . . there was substantial evidence whereby a reasonable jury could have reached its verdict . . ., recognizing that [the question of fact] must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”
• regional Circuit law controls whether attorney argument requires a new trial
• “A determination of infringement is a question of fact....”
• “While Verizon attempts to characterize the issue as one of claim construction, its argument is more accurately about whether Cox’s arguments to the jury about the distinction between how its system works and the Inter- net were improper . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).