Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Alamo Explosives Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding a district court’s judgment of enablement because the examples in the specification “were based on actual experiments”
• considering results of . experiments performed by patentee prior to filing the patent
• “[I]f the number of inoperative combinations becomes significant, and in effect, forces one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed invention, the claims might indeed be invalid.”
• “Equivalence does not require that the claimed invention and accused product have identical results; the results can be substantially the same and the accused product can be an improvement.”
• “[I]f the number of inoperative combinations becomes significant, and in effect forces one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed invention, the claim[] might indeed by invalid.”
• “It is not a requirement of equivalence ... that those skilled in the art know of the equivalence when the patent application is filed or the patent issues. That question is determined as of the time infringement takes place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).