was to prevent exactly the type of activity [Defendant] has engaged in, i.e., generating interest in a potential infringing product to the commercial detriment of the rightful pat-entee.” 3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed.Cir.1998). However, the specific decision in 3D Systems was that “price quotation letters can be regarded as ‘offer[s] to sell’ under § 271 based on the substance conveyed in the letters, i.e., a description of the allegedly infringing merchandise and the price at which it can be purchased.” 160 F.3d 1373 at 1379. More importantly, the Federal Circuit stated two years later that: “the meaning of ‘offer to sell’ is to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning in contract law.” Rotec Ind , 20 F.Supp.2d 690, 696 (D.Del.1998) (<HOLDING>). Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Newbridge
holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell holding that an internet site containing product descriptions but no pricing information is not an offer to sell holding that mere advertisements which are directed at a national audience and contain no pricing information are insufficient in and of themselves to constitute an offer to sell recognizing that motions for directed verdicts are not normally directed to bits and pieces of an action holding that rule 1442c2fs requirement that the proposal state whether attorneys fees are included is substantive because it prescribes specific substantive terms that an offer of judgment must include and which are material to an offerees ability to evaluate an offer