Legal Opinion
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 18, 2007No. 2006-1350PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Biomedino, LLC (“Biomedino”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington that claims 13-17 and 40 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,602,502 (“the '502 patent”) are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. Biomedino v. Waters Techs. Corp., No. CV05-0042 (W.D.Wash. Mar. 15, 2006). Because the claim limitation “control means” has no corresponding structure described in the specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, we affirm the district court’s invalidity determination.
I
Section 112, ¶ 6 of Title 35 of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re Donaldson Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Atmel Corporation v. Information Storage Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Valmont Industries, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corporation v. Elekta Ab, Elekta Instrument Ab, Elekta Instruments, Inc., and Elekta Oncology Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology & IGTCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.