§Why CasetextPricing

DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment of Infringement & Opposing Arthrex's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

12 Cited authorities

  1. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.

    339 U.S. 605 (1950)   Cited 1,513 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

  2. Conoco, Inc. v. Energy Envtl. Intern

    460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 234 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's argument that "a fatty acid wax was not the same as a metal stearate" clearly disavowed metal stearates as equivalents, but did not surrender all fatty acid wax equivalents

  3. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac

    344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 204 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "dependent claims are presumed to be of narrower scope than the independent claims from which they depend"

  4. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.

    279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 204 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]here an accused infringer is clearly practicing only that which was in the prior art, and nothing more, and the patentee's proffered construction reads on the accused device, meeting burden of [establishing invalidity] should not prove difficult"

  5. PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp.

    156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 199 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, for a claim reciting glass "consisting essentially of" certain materials, the district court properly "left it to the jury to determine whether the amounts of [an unclaimed ingredient had] a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics of the glass"

  6. AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "composed of `excludes ingredients that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition'"

  7. Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.

    363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 97 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “while ‘consisting of’ limits the claimed invention, it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention”

  8. Suntiger v. Scientific Research Funding Grp.

    189 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that a genuine issue of material fact as to written description precluded summary judgment

  9. Testa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    144 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice of potential relevance where company destroyed purchase order for delivery on date of plaintiff's injury, and company's "defense from the start was anchored on the premise that it had no reason to anticipate any deliveries on the day in question"

  10. A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp.

    713 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 93 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 713 F.2d 700, 218 USPQ 965 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1042, 104 S.Ct. 707, 79 L.Ed.2d 171 (1984) this court declined to impose collateral estoppel based on the first court's interpretation of the scope of patent claims, this court stating that the interpretation of patent claims is not done in the abstract, and was not "essential to a final judgment on the question of validity or infringement."

  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,026 times   1044 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"