10 Cited authorities

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,181 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)."
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 4,358 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"
Resolution Trust v. North Bridge Assoc
22 F.3d 1198 (1st Cir. 1994) Cited 168 times
Ruling in favor of parties who were denied the opportunity to file a third affidavit when they were "laid low . . . by a rabbit punch"
Exigent Tech. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.
442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 107 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is proper where a patentee “fail to set forth any argument or evidence” in response to an accused infringer's motion for summary judgment
United States Cellular Investment Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc.
281 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the essential elements required for a Rule 56(f) requests are that the party could not obtain information, and that the information is essential to oppose the summary judgment motion
Engel Industries, Inc. v. the Lockformer Co.
96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 60 times
Holding that where a patent describes two "portions" in a claim, "they logically cannot be one in the same"
United States, Small Business Adm. v. Light
766 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1985) Cited 63 times
Affirming summary judgment where parol evidence rule would bar evidence the non-movant sought from additional discovery
Vazquez Gonzalez v. K-Mart Corp.
940 F. Supp. 429 (D.P.R. 1996) Cited 7 times
Stating that plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof to rebut evidence proffered by defendant to the effect that plaintiff had abandoned her job
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 335,102 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,013 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Global Marine Systems, Limited v. Tyco International, Ltd. et al

10 Cited authorities

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)."

Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

Ruling in favor of parties who were denied the opportunity to file a third affidavit when they were "laid low . . . by a rabbit punch"

Holding that summary judgment is proper where a patentee “fail to set forth any argument or evidence” in response to an accused infringer's motion for summary judgment

Holding that the essential elements required for a Rule 56(f) requests are that the party could not obtain information, and that the information is essential to oppose the summary judgment motion

Holding that where a patent describes two "portions" in a claim, "they logically cannot be one in the same"

Affirming summary judgment where parol evidence rule would bar evidence the non-movant sought from additional discovery

Stating that plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof to rebut evidence proffered by defendant to the effect that plaintiff had abandoned her job

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system