§Why CasetextPricing

Flexi-Mat Corporation v. Dallas Manufacturing Company, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

26 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,357 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,696 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

  3. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,714 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"

  4. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,314 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"

  5. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,908 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims are not "presumed" to be restricted to the embodiments disclosed in the specification

  6. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.

    339 U.S. 605 (1950)   Cited 1,513 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

  7. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 967 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "sputter-deposited dielectric" could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process

  8. Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 550 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  9. Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. U.S.

    265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 464 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim limitation that average particle diameter be greater than 5 was not indefinite where no upper limit on particle size was given

  10. 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

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,637 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,277 times   1022 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