Download to read offline
![Markman V. Westview Instruments No. 95-26, 64
USLW 4263 (1996) [SC]
Facts:
Markman combined computer and bar code technology to minimize lost
garments and employee theft during the dry cleaning process.
The system developed was capable of monitoring and reporting the
status, location and movement of clothing in dry cleaning establishment.
The claimed invention allowed the detection of spurious additions to the
inventory as well as deletions there from.
Defendant system was capable of tracking invoice numbers, total prices
and receivables. (It did not track clothing)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/literalinfringementipr-210617103752/75/Literal-infringement-ipr-3-2048.jpg)
Literal infringement (ipr)
- 1. GITAM INSTITUTE OFPHARMACY Pharmaceutical Validation LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Submitted by ~ Mehul H Jain M. Pharmacy I-I Pharmaceutical Analysis
- 2. DEFINITION: A patent isinfringed if the accused product or process includes every element exactly as recited in at least on of its claim. Every word of a claim is used in a product, infringement is said to be literal. Thus, claims must be drafted and prosecuted with great care to minimize the possibility of competitors who will literally infringe.
- 3. Markman V. WestviewInstruments No. 95-26, 64 USLW 4263 (1996) [SC] Facts: Markman combined computer and bar code technology to minimize lost garments and employee theft during the dry cleaning process. The system developed was capable of monitoring and reporting the status, location and movement of clothing in dry cleaning establishment. The claimed invention allowed the detection of spurious additions to the inventory as well as deletions there from. Defendant system was capable of tracking invoice numbers, total prices and receivables. (It did not track clothing)
- 4. Markman Cont… Argument ofMarkman: Inventory included clothing and/or totals. Argument of Defendant: Inventory meant clothing. Jury: Defendant infringed Markman patent. Trial Court: Not an infringement, because inventory referred exclusively to articles of clothing and accused device merely maintained a listing of invoices, it could not track the location of individual garments as they moved about the shop and therefore could not infringe.
- 5. Markman Cont… Federal Circuit:(on appeal) affirmed the decision of trial court. The court established two categories of evidentiary inputs for use in claim interpretation. I. Intrinsic Evidence: consist of claims, the specification and prosecution history. Court were required to consider all intrinsic evidences to determine meaning of claims. II. Extrinsic Evidence: Dictionaries and expert testimony. Supreme Court: Affirmed the decision of federal court.
- 6.