Court granted defendant's judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Lanham Act damages where plaintiff presented no evidence that any customer was misled or relied upon defendant's advertisements found false by the jury.

Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.

Claim that patent terms were indefinite due to being susceptible to multiple meanings for a POSA rejected where the scientific evidence demonstrated that a POSA would only understand the term as having one meaning, and where defendant attempted to incorporate limiting language not supported by the intrinsic record.

Plan of reorganization establishing sexual abuse settlement trust affirmed where non-consensual releases of claims against non-debtors, who were affiliates of debtors, fell within "related to" jurisdiction since the non-debtors' viability as going concerns was necessary to the success of debtors' reorganization.

Disputed patent term was not a coined term where the term included part of another term stipulated as having a plain and ordinary meaning and there was nothing in the claim language to indicate that the remaining words of the term had anything other than their dictionary definition.

Use of the term "comprising" was open language permitting the inclusion of additional components not named in the claim language, with the claim language further implying that the term could include other components.

Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.

Court could clarify claim constructions from prior litigation involving the same patents-in-suit even if patentee acted as its own lexicographer, but only narrow clarification was necessary for one of the disputed terms.

Corporate officer was not entitled to statutory indemnification from company where officer was convicted of federal wire fraud, which included a finding that the officer acted in bad faith, and where a presidential pardon did not have the effect of eliminating the conviction.

Where indemnification provision in company purchase agreement gave sellers the right to participate in the defense of third-party claims brought by government regulators, purchasers breached those rights by unilaterally negotiating a tolling agreement with regulators.