Lhote & Co. v. Church Extension Soc. of Methodist Episcopal Church
Citations
- 115 La. 488
- 39 So. 502
- 1905 La. LEXIS 686
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Jurisdiction—Amount Involved.</p> <p>A corporation that had changed its name was sued through error under its old name, and judgment was rendered against it under its old name, and execution issued on the judgment, and its property was seized, and it enjoined the seizure. In such a case the issue is not as to the ownership of the property seized, but as to the validity of the judgment under which the execution has issued, and the appellate jurisdiction must be tested by the amount of the judgment, and not by that of the value of the property seized.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- granting summary judgment of non-enablement where the specification instructed a POSA to “engage in an iterative, trial-and- error process.”
- enabling “a subset of all [working] embodiments covered by the claims” does not enable the full scope of the claims if “a POSA could not have discovered the non-disclosed working embodiments without undue experimentation”
- considering prosecution history estoppel on motion for summary judgment, after claim construction
- “to enable the full scope of the claims as construed by the Court, it is not sufficient that the patent allows a POSA readily to make and use some species within the broad, claimed genus”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Provosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.