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
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
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