§Why CasetextPricing

Diagnostic Group, LLC v. Benson Medical

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Order to Construe Claims

13 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,344 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  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. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,694 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  5. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 965 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  6. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix

    308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 761 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user's testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application

  7. Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp.

    175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 579 times
    Holding that "modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone"

  8. Micro Chemical v. Great Plains Chemical

    194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 404 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court erroneously overlooked alternative embodiments of the invention when it concluded that the means-plus function clause could only cover the structure of the preferred embodiment

  9. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc.

    3 F.3d 404 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 340 times
    Finding that "[a]s the party moving for attorney fees, the burden was on [the prevailing party] to prove the exceptional nature of the case by clear and convincing evidence"

  10. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.

    222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the public is entitled to rely on the patentee's representations in the prosecution history concerning the scope and meaning of the claims

  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 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,031 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"