§Why CasetextPricing

Touchtunes Music Corp. v. Rowe International Corp. et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 120 MOTION for Summary Judgment. of Noninfringement. Document

8 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,698 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"

  2. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 966 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "sputter-deposited dielectric" could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process

  3. 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"

  4. Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.

    413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 357 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption established by claim differentiation was rebutted because the written description “consistently” referred to the claim term in a specific manner and arguments made during prosecution amounted to a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope

  5. Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.

    519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 244 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee can limit the meaning of a claim term “by clearly characterizing the invention in a way to try to overcome rejections based on prior art”

  6. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.

    149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 281 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a general statement distinguishing prior art applied to all claims linked to the statement

  7. Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P.

    323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 176 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the applicant to the “restrictive claim construction that was argued during prosecution” where he “never retracted any of his statements”

  8. In re Buspirone Patent Litigation

    185 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 10 times

    MDL Docket No. 1410 February 14, 2002 Richard J. Stark, Evan R. Chesler, David Russel Marriot, Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, Joshua, Ross Diamond, Diamond Robinson, Montpelier, VT, Matthew J. Becker, Day, Berry Howard, Hartford, CT, Steven Lieberman, E. Anthony Figg, Elizabeth A. Leff, Mark I. Bowditch, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst Manbeck, Washington, DC, Gordon H. Copeland, Michael T. Smith, Megan D. Dortenzo, Steptoe Johnson, Clarksburg, WV, for Plaintiff. Charles Platto, Norwich, VT, Edgar H