characterizing exclusion as a “draconian remedy,” the damage of which in that case “outweigh[ed] any possible harm of supposedly tainted evidence”
How later courts described this case
- characterizing exclusion as a “draconian remedy,” the damage of which in that case “outweigh[ed] any possible harm of supposedly tainted evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARKEY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I join in the opinion portions relating to conception and reduction and to Motions IY and V. I cannot join in what I view as dicta concerning congressional intent. I concur in the result reached in the opinion portion under ti e Utility Issue because I consider the invention here as clearly “useful in, etc.” and entirely distinct from that in Piper. As the majority opinion recognizes, each case must be decided on its own facts, and that fact is enough for me.