§Why CasetextPricing

TuitionFund, LLC v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. Signed

18 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,353 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,710 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"

  3. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,311 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"

  4. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,443 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  5. Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.

    334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,175 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

  6. 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

  7. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 660 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  8. Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert

    512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 296 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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’ ”

  9. 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

  10. 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”

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,274 times   1022 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