Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment that a patent is not invalid for indefiniteness
• rejecting construction of a term that would “obviate[ ] the import of the word ‘collection’”
• affirming the rejection of indefiniteness arguments and noting that the district court only expressly relied on extrinsic evidence, even though the intrinsic record also supported its conclusion
• affirming the rejection of indefiniteness arguments and noting that the district court only expressly relied on extrinsic evidence, even though the intrinsic record also supported its conclusion
• explaining that constructions rendering claim language superfluous are disfavored
• “Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).