§Why CasetextPricing

Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. v. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.

MEMORANDUM. Signed

18 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,452 times   66 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 5,848 times   167 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. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,382 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"

  4. Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.

    334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,194 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

  5. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 436 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that commercial success is not significantly probative of non-obviousness where others are barred from acting on the prior art

  6. Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.

    519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee can limit the meaning of a claim term “by clearly characterizing the invention in a way to try to overcome rejections based on prior art”

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

    429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 254 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

  8. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that "[i]nformation that Purdue's assertion of a four-fold dosage range was based only on [the inventor's] insight and not on experimental results was material because it was inconsistent with Purdue's statements suggesting otherwise"

  9. Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls

    340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 212 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "words of approximation, such as 'generally' and 'substantially,' are descriptive terms commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter"

  10. Phonometrics v. Northern Telecom Inc.

    133 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 218 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 124 L.Ed.2d 1, which prohibits the Federal Circuit from vacating a judgment of invalidity when we have found the patent not to have been infringed, does not prohibit a district court from dismissing a counterclaim of invalidity when it has found no infringement

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,952 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."