WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology
184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 536 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"
In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent
639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 282 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc.
268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 129 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[t]he corresponding structure to a function set forth in a means-plus-function limitation must actually perform the recited function, not merely enable the pertinent structure to operate as intended. . . ."
Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp.
532 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 31 timesResolving claim construction issues "that do not actually affect the infringement controversy between the parties" would result in an impermissible advisory opinion
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 500,095 times 39 Legal AnalysesHolding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 166,424 times 20 Legal AnalysesGranting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,016 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system