15 Cited authorities

Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
574 U.S. 318 (2015) Cited 1,281 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,812 times 166 Legal Analyses
Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert
512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 300 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 279 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.
318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 321 times
Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims
Honeywell International, Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc.
452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 265 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claims were limited to fuel filters, despite the fact that the claims contained no fuel filter limitation, because "[o]n at least four occasions, the written description refers to the fuel filter as 'this invention' or 'the present invention. . . . ' "
Absolute Software v. Stealth Signal, Inc.
659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 147 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that references to the "present invention" are not limiting if they are "not uniform" or not supported by the rest of the intrinsic evidence
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.
842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 112 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding claimed menu interface abstract because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems"
E-Pass v. 3COM Corp.
473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 64 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement where no direct infringement by a customer was established and the defendant's product manual did not teach customers to perform the method steps in the order required to infringe
Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 33 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Indacon, we held that claim terms that "have no plain or established meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art" "ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the specification."
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,482 times 2270 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Intel Corporation

15 Cited authorities

Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

Holding that the claims were limited to fuel filters, despite the fact that the claims contained no fuel filter limitation, because "[o]n at least four occasions, the written description refers to the fuel filter as 'this invention' or 'the present invention. . . . ' "

Holding that references to the "present invention" are not limiting if they are "not uniform" or not supported by the rest of the intrinsic evidence

Holding claimed menu interface abstract because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems"

Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement where no direct infringement by a customer was established and the defendant's product manual did not teach customers to perform the method steps in the order required to infringe

In Indacon, we held that claim terms that "have no plain or established meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art" "ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the specification."

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."