Talk:Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A lot of information can be added to this page. For example, there is no discussion of the opinion that the Federal Circuit issued for the case upon remand from the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued the opinion to clarify and to "fill in the gaps" of the Supreme Court's opinion. In addition, there is no mention of the particular facts of this case. Also, it wouldn't hurt to include a few sentences explaining where the Supreme Court adopted its "unforeseeable" exception to the complete surrender presumption. Believing that the D of E exists primarily to deal with after-arising technology, Justice Rader of the Federal Circuit had for some time prior to the Supreme Court's opinion argued for a foreseeability standard for prosecution history estoppel. RandomWalker 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeh but nobody really cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.118 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do :-p...filled in a bit more, will continue to work on it. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable?[edit]

Should there be any attempt in Wikipedia to make articles like this understandable to a layman? As the article is currently written, I think only patent lawyers can understand it. For example, who won? Not being a patent lawyer, I can't even tell from the article whether Festo or SMC won at the Supreme Court. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC) There is a discussion of this problem at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reading_level --Westwind273 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725082750/http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31156.pdf to https://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31156.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]