PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that examiner’s finding as to priority date must be “explicit”
• explaining that to satisfy the written description requirement, \the written description [must] actually or inherently disclose the claim element\
• noting that, to satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims”
• noting that written descrip- tion support requires that “the written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element”
• noting that “to satisfy the written description requirement, the missing descrip- tive matter must necessarily be present in the [original] application’s specification” (insertion in original and inter- nal quotations omitted)
• “Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact but is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reason- able fact finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).