§Why CasetextPricing

EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' MSJ of Non-Infringement

11 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,701 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. Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,005 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if, "when read in the context of the entire claim," the preamble "recites limitations of the claim., or . . . is `necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to" the claim, the preamble language is properly treated as limiting

  3. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 347 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

  4. BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.

    498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 293 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

  5. Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear

    379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 279 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure

  6. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.

    501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 234 times
    Holding that the patent owner must show actual infringement, rather than just the capability to infringe

  7. Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.

    6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringing acts may not be enjoined

  8. Skinmedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.

    727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "i.e." is definitional when it "comports with the inventors' other uses ... in the specification and with each and every other reference"

  9. Taurus IP, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

    726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court

  10. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

    38 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 124 times
    Affirming summary judgment of noninfringement under doctrine of equivalents