Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prior-art reference did not anticipate claims 1, 4, and 7-12, but that it did anticipate claim 20
• holding that a prior-art reference did not anticipate claims 1, 4, and 7–12, but that it did anticipate claim 20
• observing that secondary considerations of non-obviousness include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others
• noting that there is a rebuttable presumption that the filing date of a patent is its invention date
• noting that evidence of secondary considerations guards against the danger “that a patented invention might appear to be obvious given the excellent vision accorded by hindsight”
• explaining that to counter obviousness, the party must show that \commercial success of the product results from the claimed invention\; indicating that sales related to feature not actually claimed would not meet that standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).