Phillips v. AWH Corp.

Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.

Holding that claim construction was purely a matter of law and therefore subject to de novo review

Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB

Holding an expert must provide some explanation of why other potential causes were not the sole cause

Vance v. Peters

Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc.

Holding that where the reason for an amendment is clear from the prosecution history, the Warner-Jenkinson presumption does not apply

Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.

Holding that the district court abused its discretion in permitting a witness not qualified as an expert in the pertinent art to testify as an expert regarding issues of noninfringement or invalidity

Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.

Holding that "[w]here an accused infringer is clearly practicing only that which was in the prior art, and nothing more, and the patentee's proffered construction reads on the accused device, meeting burden of [establishing invalidity] should not prove difficult"

Crown Packaging v. Rexam Beverage Can

Holding that the marking requirement is inapplicable to process or method claims

Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.

Holding that because the record established such a strong case of obviousness based on the teachings of the prior art, the fact that the product was successful does not overcome the conclusion of obviousness

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

Adopting the Daubert standard

Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court

Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Rule 608 - A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

Assuming it was otherwise admissible

Section 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice

Limiting liability of medical practitioners for performance of certain medical and surgical procedures