Electro Medical Systems, S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., Dentsply International Inc., and Dentsply Research & Development Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• anticipation under § 102 “requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of each and every element of a claimed invention.”
• “Particular embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than such embodiments.”
• ‘“[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is insufficient to prove anticipation.’ ”
• no willfulness, even though infringer claimed attorney-client privilege through litigation when totality of evidence militated against such a finding
• that infringement and invalidity were close questions was factor weighing against willfulness finding
• “[A]lthough the specifications may well indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than such embodiments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).