Homework 8: Clear Example of Doctrine of Equivalents: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Kyle Tennant (talk | contribs) Created page with "Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.<br/> 264 F.3d 1326 <br/> CAFC, Kansas (2001) Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show eit..." |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 19:10, 31 March 2011
Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.
264 F.3d 1326
CAFC, Kansas (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.
