28 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 4,847 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 4,950 times   151 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"
  3. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 4,701 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)."
  4. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 3,887 times   7 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. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 418 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada
  6. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.

    357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 328 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents
  7. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.

    441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 288 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"
  8. Verizon v. Vonage Holdings

    503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 270 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim must be construed in light of limitation contained in specification's description of "the present invention"
  9. Andersen v. Fiber

    474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 220 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification disavowed claim scope
  10. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 206 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry
  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 6,686 times   829 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,562 times   817 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 2,892 times   1937 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
  14. Section 1.129 - Transitional procedures for limited examination after final rejection and restriction practice

    37 C.F.R. § 1.129   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) An applicant in an application, other than for reissue or a design patent, that has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in such application to any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121 and 365(c) , is entitled to have a first submission entered and considered on the merits after final rejection under the following circumstances: The Office will consider such a submission, if the first submission and the fee set forth in