54 Cited authorities

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
517 U.S. 370 (1996) Cited 5,366 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
572 U.S. 898 (2014) Cited 1,354 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,730 times 164 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"
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,137 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 4,321 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee
136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) Cited 268 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 1,043 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni
158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,698 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.
299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 1,445 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification
Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.
334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 1,176 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 504,232 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,288 times 1030 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 311 - Inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 311 Cited 399 times 186 Legal Analyses
Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding
Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency
37 C.F.R. § 42.100 Cited 189 times 75 Legal Analyses
Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

Danco, Inc. v. Fluidmaster Inc.

54 Cited authorities

Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"