Young Dental Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Q3 Special Products, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
112 F.3d 1137 (1997)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Young Dental Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Young) (plaintiff) held a patent for an improved disposable prophy angle (DPA), a small dental instrument used for polishing teeth. The patent contained illustrated diagrams of the shape and structure of the DPA gears, and specified that the parts should be made of Lexan and Celcon plastics. After Young’s patent was issued, David Kraenzle (defendant) designed a similar device and secured his own patent. Kraenzle and his partner, Chris Carron (defendant), formed a company called Q3 (defendant) and began selling Kraenzle’s device. Young sued Kraenzle, Q3, and Carron for patent infringement. Q3 counterclaimed for a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of Young’s patent, contending that the patent violated the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it failed to disclose the gear ratio and grades of plastic that the inventor believed should be used in the DPA design for best results. The jury found for Q3, and Young appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clevenger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.