28 Cited authorities

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
517 U.S. 370 (1996) Cited 5,344 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,700 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"
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,120 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 4,305 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"
NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 458 times 16 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
Verizon v. Vonage Holdings
503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 339 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim must be construed in light of limitation contained in specification's description of "the present invention"
Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 364 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 327 times 3 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"
Andersen v. Fiber
474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 259 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the specification disavowed claim scope
Technology v. Videotek
545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 244 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
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,265 times 1021 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
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,933 times 941 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,391 times 2188 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."
Section 1.129 - Transitional procedures for limited examination after final rejection and restriction practice
37 C.F.R. § 1.129 Cited 6 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

Nextec Applications, Inc. v. Brookwood Companies, Inc. et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

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"

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

Holding that claim must be construed in light of limitation contained in specification's description of "the present invention"

Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents

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"

Holding that the specification disavowed claim scope

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

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

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."