Cedarapids, Inc. v. Nordberg, Inc.

121 F.3d 727 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The '745 patent discloses a method for increasing efficiency and output of a rock crusher without increasing the size of the crusher chamber by simultaneously increasing speed and throw. P brought this suit for a declaratory judgment that the '745 patent is invalid and not infringed. D counterclaimed alleging that P's Rollercone II product infringes claim 1 of the '745 patent. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issues of validity and infringement. The court held that claim 1 does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention because it provides insufficient information about how much to increase the speed and throw. The court held claim 1 invalid for indefiniteness because the patent does not specify whether it applies to redesign, retrofit or replacement and does not indicate how much speed and throw should be increased. The court construed claim 1 as limited to retrofitting an existing machine. Because P's Rollercone II is a new machine it does not literally infringe. D appeals the district court's findings of nonenablement, indefiniteness, and noninfringement.