Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar case brief summary
935 F.2d 1555 (1991)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellees sued defendants-appellants for declaratory judgment that their products did not infringe defendants' utility patents. The district court entered partial final judgment declaring the patents invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(b). The court concluded that the utility patents claims were not entitled to the benefit of earlier design patent application filing date which comprised the same drawings as the utility patents, because the application did not provide the written description required by 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, para. 1.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed because the drawings alone could provide the "written description," and because the combination invention was what the drawings showed, the description was sufficient to raise factual questions of patent validity, and thus summary judgment was improper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
935 F.2d 1555 (1991)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants-appellants sought review of
the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, which granted partial summary judgment to
plaintiffs-appellees in their action for patent infringement.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellees sued defendants-appellants for declaratory judgment that their products did not infringe defendants' utility patents. The district court entered partial final judgment declaring the patents invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(b). The court concluded that the utility patents claims were not entitled to the benefit of earlier design patent application filing date which comprised the same drawings as the utility patents, because the application did not provide the written description required by 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, para. 1.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed, holding that under proper circumstances, drawings alone could provide the "written description" required by § 112.
- A description had to clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that patentee invented what was claimed.
- Because the combination invention was what the drawings showed, the description was sufficient to raise factual questions of patent validity, and thus summary judgment was improper.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed because the drawings alone could provide the "written description," and because the combination invention was what the drawings showed, the description was sufficient to raise factual questions of patent validity, and thus summary judgment was improper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment