Oswald v. Landmark Builders

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a chemical patent inherently anticipated and stating that it was irrelevant whether the inherently disclosed chemical was ever actually produced
• stating that if “both parties sought summary judgment” and if “this court determines that no material facts remain in dispute, [this court] may proceed to determine entitlement to judgment under the law”
• finding inherent disclo- sure of a compound that was unknown when the prior art reference was created
• “Once the nail has seated tightly, it can be driven in.... ”
• “Thus, whether it was actually possible to make pure PCH anhydrate before the critical date of the ’723 patent is irrelevant. The ’196 patent suffices as an anticipatory prior art reference if it discloses in an enabling manner the production of PHC hemihydrate.”
• “The test for indefiniteness does not depend on a potential infringer’s ability to ascertain the nature of its own accused product to determine infringement, but instead on whether the claim delineates to a skilled artisan the bounds of the invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).