Dippin' Dots v. Mosey v. Esty, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that but-for materiality “requires that the patent would not have issued but for the patent examiner’s justifiable reliance on the patentee’s misrepresentation or omission.”
• concluding there was insufficient evidence of intent following a full trial
• requiring “higher threshold showings of both materiality and intent than are required to show inequitable conduct.”
• “[Comprising] ‘is not a weasel word with which to abrogate claim limitations.’ ”
• “ ‘Comprising’ does not reach into [each claim limitation] to render every word and phrase therein open-ended.... ”
• “[T]he term ‘comprising’ raises a presumption that the list of elements is nonexclusive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).