Conoco Inc. v. Energy & Environmental Int’l, L.C.
Infringement of "consisting of" claim not avoided by addition of element unrelated to the claimed invention.
|
E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp.
Patentee loses appeal of summary judgment order of non-infringement because the district court had applied correct claim construction and because patentee did not present sufficient evidence of infringement.
|
Honeywell Int’l v. ITT Indus., Inc.
The Court upheld a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Defendant ITT because the district court properly construed the main claim term at issue.
|
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.
When there is an express disclaimer, no license can be implied.
The exhaustion doctrine does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license. "Substantially all" may not vitiate a claim limitation requiring "all."
|
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.
Construing term "about 1.5" to mean "approximately 1.5, encompassing a range of rations no greater than 1:3.6 to 1:7.1"
|
Planet Bingo v. GameTech Int'l
Federal Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling for Bingo Competitor
|
Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Paddock Labs., Inc.
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was precluded by prosecution history estoppel.
|