Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., Robert D. Keenum, and Keenum, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• cautioning against confusing “interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim” with “adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification”
• stressing the “impropriety of injecting into claims limitations from the prosecution history”
• “The presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 carries with it a presumption the examiner did his duty and knew what claims he was allowing”
• “The trial court correctly held that it must, in determining the fact of infringement, compare the defendant’s product with the claims of the patent, not with the patentee’s product”
• “[Limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into claims.”
• “The examiner was fully aware of what claims he was allowing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).