remanding the legal issue of obviousness "[i]n the absence of ... special findings and of a proper charge on which a conclusion of obviousness can be reviewed, and because the parties here [we]re not yet in substantial agreement as to facts bearing on the obviousness issue"
How later courts described this case
- remanding the legal issue of obviousness "[i]n the absence of ... special findings and of a proper charge on which a conclusion of obviousness can be reviewed, and because the parties here [we]re not yet in substantial agreement as to facts bearing on the obviousness issue"
- noting that claim construction is a matter of law while reading the claims on the accused devices is a finding of fact
- "The doctrine is usually asserted when literal infringement is not made out."
- definition 3a of preposition "between"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BALDWIN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
I only wish to clarify that in this case the claims at issue were submitted to the jury with proper instructions. The jury in its deliberations construed the claims in accordance with those instructions and then determined there was no infringement.
Further, regarding the ‘210 patent, we have not construed claim 1 de novo in this appeal. We are presuming this particular construction as it is consistent with the jury verdict and it is supported by substantial evidence.