J&R Enterprises v. Ware Creek Real Estate Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an inventor’s deposition testimony that the terms “vivid” and “strong” were synonymous was “of little value in the definiteness analysis or claim construction.”
• noting that even where merits are close, where they favor the moving party that party is entitled to the irreparable harm presumption
• “[A] patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.”
• “An assessment of the likelihood of infringement, like a determination of patent infringement at a later stage in litigation, requires a two-step analysis.”
• “A determination that a claim is invalid as being anticipated or lacking novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a finding that ‘each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’”
• “[T]he [preliminary] injunction should not issue if the party opposing the injunction raises ‘a substantial question concerning infringe ment or validity, meaning that it asserts a defense that [the party seeking the injunction] cannot prove lacks substantial merit.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).