Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• considering whether there is so much dissimilarity that it would be inequitable to regard the infringing invention as within the scope of the claims
• observing that it “is hornbook law that anticipation must be found in a single reference, device, or process,” and finding that “to combine the teachings of the references to build an anticipation . . . would be contrary to settled law”
• rejecting an anticipation challenge where the challenger relied on two additional articles “for a very specific teaching, not for any light they shed on what [the anticipatory reference] would have meant to those skilled in the art”
• “It is hornbook law that anticipation must be found in a single reference, device, or process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).