§Why CasetextPricing

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc.

REPLY to 122 Claim Construction Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,776 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. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,058 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

  3. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 536 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  4. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 283 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. Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.

    939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times
    Holding that the doctrine of claim differentiation yields to an interpretation mandated by § 112, ¶ 6

  6. Adams Resp. Therapeutics v. Perrigo Co.

    616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that “[o]ur cases law does not contain a blanket prohibition against comparing the accused product to a commercial embodiment” in assessing infringement where that commercial embodiment meets all of claim limitations of the patent at issue

  7. S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp.

    259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that the specification's reference to a "selector" sufficed as one skilled in the art would have understood the term

  8. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc.

    346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 53 times
    Construing the asserted claims consistent with the examiner’s reasons for allowance where the examiner simply reiterated "the arguments that the patentee had presented"

  9. Sipco, LLC v. ABB, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-CV-0048 LED-JDL (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2012)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that construing "configured to" perform a function as "may be configured [to]" perform a function "would eliminate any meaningful limits to the claims"

  10. Aristocrat Tech. v. Multimedia Games

    266 F. App'x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    In Multimedia Games, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's finding of invalidity for indefiniteness in the context of a patent for an electronic lottery machine akin to a slot machine.

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,325 times   1038 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

  13. Section 121 - Divisional applications

    35 U.S.C. § 121   Cited 215 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the other invention [can be] made the subject of a divisional application"