LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand” the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it
• concluding that “claim 21 refers to taking a seamless DWT generically”
• finding that a patent did not cover a general process where the specification only described a particular type of process
• stating that the requirements of enablement and written description “usually rise and fall together”
• affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment on written description grounds
• ex- plaining that “only enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).