§Why CasetextPricing

Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM

19 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 27,007 times   238 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 4,978 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  3. Ervin v. Johnson

    492 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 277 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician's opinion, without the support of epidemiological data or any physiological explanation was unreliable

  4. Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp.

    285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 278 times
    Holding that expert cannot give opinion that is "just parroting the opinion of [another] expert"

  5. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 302 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  6. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.

    550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 179 times   9 Legal Analyses
    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

  7. Florek v. Vill. of Mundelein

    649 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 101 times
    Holding under the Fourth Amendment's reasonable analysis that officer's decision to not give arrest suspect aspirin when "her outward appearance did not put officers on notice of her medical condition" was reasonable as there is no requirement to "provide what hindsight reveals to be the most effective medical care"

  8. Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.

    713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no duty to disclose a mere "conception" because it is not material

  9. Custom Accessories v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus

    807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that upon reissue, the burden of proving invalidity is "made heavier"

  10. Bayer AG v. Schein Pharms., Inc.

    301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 84 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an application may claim benefit under § 120 to defeat an invalidity defense under § 102(d)

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,535 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it