Action for infringement of patent for rodless piston cylinder. The jury found that one of the claims was invalid for lack of utility, because the invention of the claim did not work in the way the patentee had argued that it did when distinguishing it from the prior art. The Federal Circuit reversed this judgment.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Thursday 13 of November, 2008 15:08:08 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Thursday 13 of November, 2008 15:08:08 GMT by Unknown