Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
517 U.S. 370 (1996) Cited 5,357 times 64 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,127 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding 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)."
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 4,314 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"
Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.
358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 1,299 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification
Comark Communications v. Harris Corp.
156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,183 timesHolding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"
Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 550 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the progression of claim language showed that the patentee "purposefully sought" a claim broader in scope than its earlier one and, "[a]bsent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language"
U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.
103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 677 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court
Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.
318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 315 timesHolding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims
Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.
185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 313 timesHolding that a dispute about the district court's limitation of the time period during which the jury could find willful infringement was moot in view of the court's determination that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award enhanced damages
Bell Howell Document Mgmt. v. Altek Sys
132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 200 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that when the intrinsic evidence is unambiguous, it is improper for the court to rely on extrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,277 times 1022 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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