The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.