Hartness International, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Simplimatic Engineering Co., Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that it is a fortiori that a dependent claim is not obvious when the independent claim that it incorporates is not obvious
• \Whether that accused device is a 112 equivalent of the described embodiment is a question of fact.\ (citation omitted)
• as to validity, dependent claim was “nonobvious (and novel)” if independent claim was nonobvious and novel because dependent claim “contained all the limitations of [the independent claim] plus a further limitation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).