The Toro Company, Plaintiff-Cross v. Deere & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the term “‘control mechanism,’ like the [term] ‘control means’ . . . is subject to § 112 ¶ 6”
• explaining that claims should not be limited to specific numerical parameters from preferred embodiments unless the embodiment is the entire invention presented by the patentee
• explaining that claims should not be limited to specific numerical parameters from preferred embodiments unless the embodiment is the entire invention presented by the patentee
• affirming grant of summary judgment because “the two systems accomplish [the claimed] function in fundamentally different ways”
• affirming an infringement finding in the absence of an express claim construction because no claim construction was offered that would avoid infringement
• “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).