§Why CasetextPricing

BASF AGRO B.V., ARNHEM (NL), WADENSWIL BRANCH et al v. CHEMINOVA, INC.

MEMORANDUM Opening Markman Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,120 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)."

  3. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,305 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. 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. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.

    417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 586 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim term “aesthetically pleasing” indefinite because, even though the preferred embodiment provided “examples of aesthetic features of screen displays that can be controlled by the authoring system,” the specification did not indicate “what selection of these features would be ‘aesthetically pleasing’ ”

  6. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 659 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  7. Middleton, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

    311 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 222 times
    Holding that "the most important indicator of the meaning of [a term] is its usage and context within the claim itself"

  8. Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.

    242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 197 times
    Stating that the claims should not "enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the invention"

  9. Sinorgchem v. Int'l. Trade Com'n

    511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that language in specification defined a claim term based, in part, on the fact that term was set off by quotation marks and noting that this is "often a strong indication that what follows is a definition"

  10. Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that the "plain meaning" of the claim at issue in that case would "not bear a reading" under which two different claim terms were construed as describing a single element

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,265 times   1021 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

  12. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 212 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"