Ex Parte 7,483,856 et al

9 Cited authorities

Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.
334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 1,176 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous
Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc.
686 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's publications in a national publication—even a publication based in the forum state—is not a “contact” with a “specific” forum
Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc.
758 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that argument first raised on "motion for reconsideration comes too late and is ordinarily deemed waived"
Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.
329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 179 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by limiting the scope of a claim based on language in the preamble where any claim in the patent that actually required what was set forth in the preamble also included "an explicit . . . limitation in the body of the claim" saying so
Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.
672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that equitable "intervening rights ... apply as a matter of judicial discretion to mitigate liability"
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.
789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 93 times 32 Legal Analyses
Finding that the Board's construction of key claim terms was unreasonably broad in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and on that basis vacating and remanding the Board's finding of unpatentability
Saffran v. Johnson
712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 56 times
Holding that affirmative disclaimers along the lines of “I hereby disclaim the following” are not required and that a statement affirmatively defining a disputed term is sufficient for prosecution disclaimer
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.
667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 55 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that Seagate does not impose obstacle to discovery based on the failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief where the defendant's alleged willful conduct began before the start of litigation
In re Packard
751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 35 times 11 Legal Analyses
Addressing the issues separately

Ex Parte 7,483,856 et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

Holding that a defendant's publications in a national publication—even a publication based in the forum state—is not a “contact” with a “specific” forum

Stating that argument first raised on "motion for reconsideration comes too late and is ordinarily deemed waived"

Holding that district court erred by limiting the scope of a claim based on language in the preamble where any claim in the patent that actually required what was set forth in the preamble also included "an explicit . . . limitation in the body of the claim" saying so

Recognizing that equitable "intervening rights ... apply as a matter of judicial discretion to mitigate liability"

Finding that the Board's construction of key claim terms was unreasonably broad in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and on that basis vacating and remanding the Board's finding of unpatentability

Holding that affirmative disclaimers along the lines of “I hereby disclaim the following” are not required and that a statement affirmatively defining a disputed term is sufficient for prosecution disclaimer

Finding that Seagate does not impose obstacle to discovery based on the failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief where the defendant's alleged willful conduct began before the start of litigation

Addressing the issues separately