Durel Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. Osram Sylvania Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the addition of hydroxyl groups to the alleged oxide coating in the accused product made it no longer an \oxide coating\ as properly construed under the asserted patent, and thus placing the accused product outside the reach of the doctrine of equivalents
• finding that the addition of hydroxyl groups to the alleged oxide coating in the accused product made it no longer an “oxide coating” as properly construed under the asserted patent, and thus placing the accused product outside the reach of the doctrine of equivalents
• looking to examples that immediately followed definition in specification to construe claim term
• “If the disclosure enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a particular metal oxide coating from at least one of the suggested precursors, the enablement requirement for that oxide coating is satisfied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).