Template:Did you know nominations/LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was not promoted after 25 days. The unreferenced paragraphs issue raised by Johnbod (talk · contribs) have not been addressed by the nominator after 18 days, as noted by Schwede66 (talk · contribs). If the nominator addresses the referencing concerns within the next five days, I am willing to reopen the nomination. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. edit
- ... that the LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. court ruling decisively applied the "written description doctrine" for patent infringement cases?
Created/expanded by Falsifian (talk). Nominated by Gyp2 (talk) at 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Several unreferenced paras, though that can be fixed easily I'm sure; "decisively" should be reflected in the article itself; it seems justified by the abstract of the paper cited, which is all I can see. That to pass for DYK, but otherwise, obviously the subject is highly technical, both legally and scientifically, but I have to say I found it almost entirely incomprehensible; the judgement is much better, and longer, & should maybe be used for quotes. The article probably tries to cover too much ground quickly, & what the "written description doctrine" is is never explained. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
