§Why CasetextPricing

LifeNet Health v. Tissue Regenix Woundcare, Inc. et al

RESPONSE Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief to 49 Notice of Filing

20 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,344 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,700 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"

  3. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,221 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  4. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,907 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims are not "presumed" to be restricted to the embodiments disclosed in the specification

  5. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,208 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  6. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,030 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”

  7. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 965 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  8. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.

    103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 676 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court

  9. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

    626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 399 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court "was not obligated to provide additional guidance to the jury" beyond directing the jury to apply the "ordinary meaning" of a claim term

  10. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 247 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee's failure to show that an accused product meets every claim limitation recited in a properly construed claim results in summary judgment of non-infringement