Tuesday, February 23, 2010

"Consisting Of" and "Consisting Essentially Of" are not Substantially Identical

The court granted defendant's motion to limit damages to the period of time after the PTO issued a certificate of reexamination for the asserted patent claiming a potassium bromate replacement used in commercial bread-making. Plaintiff's amended claims using the transitional phrase "consisting of" were not substantially identical to the original claims which used the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of."

Kim v. Earthgrains Co.,
1-01-cv-02895 (ILND February 18, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Cox, J.)

No comments: