The Dow Chemical Company v. Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd. And Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the intrinsic evidence may not be contradicted by any meaning found in dictionaries”
• explaining that when a claim “is written in Jepson format, ... the claim first describes the scope of the prior art and then claims an improvement over the prior art.”
• rejecting district court's claim construction in part because many preferred embodiment experiments were excluded by district court’s claim construction
• The district court “improperly imported a limitation not supported by the claim language or the specification.”
• “[I]n determining the ordinary meaning of a technical term, courts are free to consult scientific dictionaries and technical treatises at any time.”
• “[T]he court must examine the intrinsic evidence to determine whether the patentee has given a term an unconventional meaning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).