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
Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"
Holding that district court properly admitted competing scientific testimony and stating that "it would contravene fundamental principles of due and fair process to withhold evidence of disparate scientific opinion relevant to the findings—in this case of infringement vel non—required of the jury
Holding that the term "pumping means" in a patent directed to fuel pump assembly technology was not a means-plus-function limitation as the limitation recited not only a pumping means, but its structure, location, and operation
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded expert testimony that was not included in the expert report because "[a]n expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was substantially justified or harmless."
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."