Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or both liability theories, and because we find there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of gender discrimination, infra, we need make no determination as to whether or not the court erred in granting judgment to Plaintiff as a matter of law on her constitutional claim of a violation of procedural due process. Cf. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 99, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 2199, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981) (“[P]rior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision.”). Our analysis has the effect of mooting the district court’s holding as to the due process claim, leaving that ruling without legal effect. Cf. Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 93-95, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 1973-74, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the complaint placed the defendant on notice when it alleged ownership of the asserted patent named the individual defendants cited the patents that are allegedly infringed described the means by which the defendants allegedly infringed the patents and pointed to specific sections of the patent law invoked (B) holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section (C) recognizing that in patent infringement eases a finding of noninfringement prevents a court from reaching an affirmative defense asserting the patents invalidity because the validity issue becomes immaterial to the disposition of the case and that any determination of the patents validity by the district court in such a case should be vacated (D) holding that the rationale of the consent decree cases was fully applicable where a stipulated dismissal and settlement resolved pending patent litigation and there were other licensees and alleged infringers who had an incentive to challenge the patents validity (E) holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case
Output (English): holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section