15 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,341 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
  2. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,236 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
  3. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,206 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
  4. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 280 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."
  5. Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc.

    437 F. App'x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 45 times
    Concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow additional claims, having previously required plaintiff to limit its asserted claims from 629 to fifteen
  6. Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.

    918 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Del. 2013)   Cited 16 times
    Rejecting argument that In re Katz recognized duplication as the only ground supporting narrowing of claims
  7. Princeton Biochemicals Inc. v. Beckman Instruments Inc.

    180 F.R.D. 254 (D.N.J. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    In Princeton, I found the case to be complex and thus warranting bifurcation at trial because the jury would be require to process volumes of technical exhibits, and "this task would be surely overwhelming to even the most sophisticated jurors."
  8. Fleming v. Cobra Elecs. Corp.

    Case No. 1:12-CV-392-BLW (D. Idaho Apr. 24, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Denying motion to limit claims brought before invalidity contentions had been served
  9. Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.

    No. C 12-01106 WHA (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Finding 50 claims unreasonable for discovery and 15 too many for trial
  10. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P. v. Comcast Corp. (In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.)

    821 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (C.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. CV 07–ML–01816–RGK (FFMx) CV 07–06996–RGK (FFMx). 2011-09-29 In re: KATZ INTERACTIVE CALL PROCESSING PATENT LITIGATION.This document relates to:Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Defendants. See, e.g., Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed.Cir.2007). (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Joint Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Sections 102 and 103 (“Group C §§ 102/103 Decision”) at p. 8.) This Court

  11. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 14,933 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,262 times   1019 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