Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,810 times 165 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 4,358 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"
Comark Communications v. Harris Corp.
156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,189 timesHolding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"
U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.
103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 688 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court
SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.
775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 982 timesHolding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims
Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. U.S.
265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 465 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim limitation that average particle diameter be greater than 5 was not indefinite where no upper limit on particle size was given
Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 354 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement
Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert
512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 300 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”
Acumed v. Stryker Corp.
483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 304 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "defined on . . . an axis" was not a limiting term
SunRace Roots Enterprise Co. v. SRAM Corp.
336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 304 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that an element should not be read into a claim in which "the cam feature was explicitly included as an element in numerous claims, but not in the claim in suit"
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,013 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system