§Why CasetextPricing

Inner-Tite Corp. v. Dewalch Technologies

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

17 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. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.

    535 U.S. 722 (2002)   Cited 810 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

  4. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,127 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)."

  5. 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"

  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. 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"

  8. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.

    775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 978 times
    Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

  9. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.

    149 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 306 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar interpretation "would force the All Elements rule to swallow the doctrine of equivalents, reducing the application of the doctrine to nothing more than a repeated analysis of literal infringement" (footnote omitted)

  10. Becton Dickinson and Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 243 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding we have discretion to consider arguments that are not properly raised in the opening brief

  11. 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

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,039 times   1047 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"