John H. Griffin and Judith Greengard v. Rogier M. Bertina and Pieter H. Reitsma

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a “wherein” clause limited a claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of the claim
• finding that a “wherein” clause limited a claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of the claim
• holding as limiting a method claim’s preamble reciting “diagnosing an increased risk for thrombosis,” where claim covering nucleic-acid tests performed on a “test subject” was meaningless without understanding that “[d]iagnosis is . . . the essence of [the] invention”
• holding a wherein clause limiting when it elaborates the meaning of other claim language
• the limiting effect of wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the [claim]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).