§Why CasetextPricing

Wi-LAN, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al

RESPONSE TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

4 Cited authorities

  1. 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. . . . ' "

  2. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Industries, Inc.

    199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 204 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that construction of "including" required attachment between structures where that was the only embodiment disclosed and where nothing in the remainder of the specification supported an unattached embodiment; "[T]he specification describes the advantages of the unitary structure as important to the invention. . . . No other, broader concept was described as embodying the applicant's invention, or shown in any of the drawings, or presented for examination."

  3. Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 252 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]wo claims which read differently can claim the same subject matter"

  4. Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 35 times
    Noting the "presumption that differently worded claims cover different claim scope," stemming from "the legal canon of construction against superfluity" such that " construction that would cause two differently worded claims to cover exactly the same claim scope would render one of the claims superfluous, so [courts] apply a presumption against such constructions"