YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. v. Imclone Systems 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 the two dependent claims were \to be construed in light of their dependence on\ two independent claims and evaluating a putative co-inventor's contributions \with an eye toward the independent claims\
• declining to consider any investment made by the defendant after they became aware of the inventorship dispute in the laches analysis
• Having persuaded the PTO that a certain figure disclosed a certain claim element in obtaining the patent, \[the court] will not permit defendants to argue now that their assertions to the PTO were incorrect.\
• Having persuaded the PTO that a certain figure disclosed a certain claim element in obtaining the patent, “[the court] will not permit defendants to argue now that their assertions to the PTO were incorrect.”
• “Because we find that defendants’ hands are unclean, ie., they are responsible for plaintiff not finding out about their patent applications, the laches defense is unavailable to defendants.”
• judicial estoppel proper where party made statements that were inconsistent with statements previously made to USPTO

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).