Rulings Against Defendant in Patent Case Involving "POL Regulators" Upheld
The judgment against defendant was affirmed as: 1) the district court's claim construction of the term "POL regulator" was adequate to fully describe the scope of the claims; 2) the claim term "POL regulator" is not indefinite and does not render the claims of one patent indefinite; and 3) sufficient evidence supports a finding that the scope of prior art was limited, that there are significant differences between the invention disclosed in a patent and the prior art, and that relevant secondary considerations support a finding of nonobviousness.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Or contact an attorney near you: