Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, 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 a combination of printed schematics and expert testimony on a product was permissible and indeed sufficient to prove anticipation
• explaining that finding of invalidity of certain claims does not moot counterclaim for inequitable conduct directed to entire patent
• “Anticipation requires a showing that each element of the claim, properly construed, is found in a single prior art reference.”
• “It is the presence of the prior art and its relationship to the claim language that matters for invalidity”
• “[M]ere proof that the prior art is identical, in all material respects, to an allegedly infringing product cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.”
• “[M]ere proof that the prior art is identical, in all material respects, to an allegedly infringing product cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).