10 Cited authorities

  1. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer
  2. B. B. Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp

    249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 147 times
    Holding district court did not err by declining to construe the term "melting" as it did "not appear to have required construction, or to depart from its ordinary meaning"
  3. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.

    522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions
  4. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 147 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"
  5. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys. Inc.

    234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that a construction that effectively rendered certain terms of a claim irrelevant "would contribute nothing but meaningless verbiage to the definition of the claimed invention" and is therefore disfavored
  6. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

    889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although "an accused infringer cannot defeat a claim of literal infringement or establish invalidity merely by pointing to similarities between an accused product and the prior art, . . . [a litigant may argue] that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read on an accused device, then this same broad construction will read on the prior art."
  7. Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.

    No. C 12-1971 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Excluding expert report but allowing expert "to submit a revised damages report curing [] the problems identified in [the court's] order"
  8. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Innovacon, Inc.

    Case No.: 16-CV-00698-CAB-NLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Case No.: 16-CV-00698-CAB-NLS 08-03-2018 REMBRANDT DIAGNOSTICS, LP, Plaintiff, v. INNOVACON, INC., Defendant. INNOVACON, INC., Counter Claimant, v. REMBRANDT DIAGNOSTICS, LP and ASSURANCE BIOTECH LLC, Counter Defendants. Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge ORDER VACATING ORDER DISMISSING REMBRANDT'S CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE '019 PATENT [Doc. Nos. 63, 207, 209, 224-230] This case is before the Court on a host of summary judgment and Daubert motions filed by all parties. Plaintiff

  9. Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co.

    129 U.S. 530 (1889)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 65. Argued January 25, 1889. Decided March 5, 1889. Claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 178,463, granted June 6, 1876, to George M. Peters, for an improvement in tools for attaching sheet-metal moldings, on an application filed March 7, 1876, namely, "1. A sheath for applying metallic moldings, said sheath being furnished with a stop for advancing the molding, all substantially as and for the purpose specified;

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 93,834 times   640 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37