§Why CasetextPricing

ScanSoft, Inc. v. Art Advancec Recognition Technologies, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,501,966 and In Support of 27 Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgment Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 56

23 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,142 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. 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

  3. 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)."

  4. 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"

  5. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.

    381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,908 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims are not "presumed" to be restricted to the embodiments disclosed in the specification

  6. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,696 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  7. Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,299 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification

  8. 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"

  9. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

    365 U.S. 336 (1961)   Cited 365 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention

  10. Gart v. Logitech, Inc.

    254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 260 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the notice must contain a "specific charge of infringement"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,637 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,649 times   255 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 10,028 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead

  14. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,896 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents