36 U.S.C. § 112
Honor America Days
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
112(a) | 36:157b (words before comma). | June 13, 1975, Pub. L. 94–33, 89 Stat. 211. |
112(b) | 36:157b (words after comma). |
|
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc. v. The West Bend Co., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc. v. The West Bend Co., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “West Bend states that it did not raise all of the grounds of invalidity that it might have raised, particularly with respect to validity based on 36 U.S.C. § 112 . Presto responds that West Bend presented the affidavit of its patent expert that he had thoroughly studied the…”
Hitkansut LLC v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 101 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “258, 268 (2014) (“Hitkansut V”) (concluding that one of the seven claims, a dependent claim, was invalid because it failed to specify a further limitation on the pertinent independent claim pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 112 , Paragraph 4 (2006)). 1 At issue in the trial are three…”
Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 299 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “The second most critical source of intrinsic evidence is the patent specification, which “contain[s] a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it_” 36 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (2006). The “specification ‘is always highly relevant to the…”
Sram Corp. v. Ad-ii Eng'g, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “Claims 30 and 36 were rejected under 36 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as “vague and indefinite” because “Antecedent basis is lacking in the form of language followed by a reference character, for ‘support member’ .”
Stearns v. Vets. of Foreign Wars, 394 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1975). “Congress gave the members of the VFW power to complete its organization including, inter alia, the power to adopt a constitution and bylaws, 36 U.S.C. § 112 ; set forth the purposes of the corporation, which are, inter alia, “fraternal, patriotic, historical, and educational,”…”
Lufthansa Technik AG v. Astronics Advanced Elec. Sys. Corp., 196 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2016). “AES argues that “it is black letter law that a claim that includes an indefinite limitation is invalid pursuant to 36 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 282,” and quotes the Court’s prior Order stating “[i]f a single claim limitation is indefinite, the entire claim is invalid.”
Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp., 263 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2017). “The term “transactional operator” in Claim 15 of the ’625 Patent is indefinite under 36 U.S.C. § 112 (b). 2 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant NCR Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity[162] is DENIED IN PART and…”
SDS USA, INC. v. Ken Specialties, Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. 2000). “Indefiniteness Ken initially proceeds under 36 U.S.C. § 112 , ¶ 2: “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Recro Tech. LLC, 694 F. App'x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “The Board considered this disclosure and was “not persuaded that portions of these specifications are sufficient to fulfill the requirements of 36 U.S.C. § 112 , first paragraph.” JA 38.”
Leines v. Homeland Vinyl Prods., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2020). “However, 36 U.S.C. § 112 does not have a subdivision six, only 26 a subdivision “(f),” which is titled “Element in Claim for a Combination” and is not the subdivision related to indefiniteness.”
Digit. Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, LP (W.D. Tex. 2020). “See 36 U.S.C. § 112 (f); Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.”
Ancora Tech., Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2020). “See 36 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 61; Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.