Wright Medical Technology, Inc. And Dow Corning Corp. (Formerly Dow Corning Wright Corp.) v. Osteonics Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that a court “must not interpret an independent claim in a way that is inconsistent with a claim which depends from it”
• explaining that the Court “must not interpret an independent claim in a way that is inconsistent with a claim which depends from it”
• disagreeing with construction of term to include every structure “that meets the functional objective of the invention”
• remanding so the fact-finder could determine whether there was infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, because the patentee had not specifically argued infringement under the doctrine but had introduced relevant evidence and arguments
• “[W]e must not interpret an independent claim in a way that is inconsistent with a claim which depends from it.”
• “Literal infringement exists if each of the limitations of the asserted elaim(s) read[s] on, that is, is found in, the accused device.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).