§Why CasetextPricing

Broadcom Corporation v. Emulex Corporation

REPLY in Support of Renewed MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Infringement of Claim 1 of the '194 Patent and Claim 5 of the '124 Patent 960

10 Cited authorities

  1. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,456 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

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

    626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 412 times   6 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

  3. Conoco, Inc. v. Energy Envtl. Intern

    460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 242 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that applicant's argument that "a fatty acid wax was not the same as a metal stearate" clearly disavowed metal stearates as equivalents, but did not surrender all fatty acid wax equivalents

  4. Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.

    582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 202 times
    Finding that "extrinsic sources like expert testimony cannot overcome more persuasive intrinsic evidence"

  5. White v. Ford Motor Co.

    312 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 198 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior accident when the testimony was "somewhat ambiguous" as to whether the prior accident was caused by a manufacturing defect or the design defect at issue in the case

  6. Sitrick v. Dreamworks

    516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment that claims were invalid for lack of enablement when the claims encompassed both video games and movies, but the specification did not enable the invention for use in movies

  7. Lazare Kaplan Intern v. Photoscribe Tech

    628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming finding of prior art based on testimony corroborated by contract and operation manual made contemporaneously with alleged prior art invention

  8. Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.

    602 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting inventor testimony to factual testimony that did not require expert opinion" because the witnesses "had not previously provided expert reports or been qualified as ... expert"

  9. Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Systems International LLC

    618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence of commercial success "carries little weight" where it may be ascribed to "pre-existing market share"

  10. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharmaceutical Corp.

    225 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that inventors' "entire personal knowledge in the field of the invention" was not material