§Why CasetextPricing

PACid Group, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al

REPLY BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION in Support of 251 Claim Construction Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,215 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  2. 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"

  3. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that the district court improperly read limitations from the specification into the claims

  4. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp.

    343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "court's task is not to limit claim language to exclude particular devices because they do no serve a perceived 'purpose' of the invention. Rather, the district court's function is to interpret claims according to their plain language unless the patentee has chosen to be his own lexicographer in the specification or has clearly disclaimed coverage during prosecution. An invention may possess a number of advantages or purposes, and there is no requirement that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them."

  5. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

    692 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Finding the structure "A/D converter and microprocessor 24 and switch 28" recited a general purpose computer triggering WMS Gaming

  6. Alcatel USA Sourcing, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

    CASE NO. 6:06 CV 499 PATENT CASE (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that "while the specification discloses that a user enters the first user identification information, the disclosed embodiments do not require a user to perform that method step"

  7. Saffran v. Boston Scientific Corporation

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-05-CV-547 (TJW) (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2008)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-05-CV-547 (TJW). July 9, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER T. WARD, District Judge I. Introduction The court DENIES Boston Scientific Corporation's ("BSC") Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (#180) (the "Motion") for the reasons addressed in this opinion. II. Factual Background and Procedural Posture In this patent infringement case, the plaintiff, Bruce Saffran ("Saffran") Ph.D., M.D., sued BSC for infringing, directly and/or contributorily