30 Cited authorities

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cited 614 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"
Hill v. White
321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) Cited 849 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]e review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b) for failure to state a claim"
Finisar v. Directv
523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 416 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"
Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.
232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 503 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a patentee's representation about claim language limits that language even if it is later deleted and added elsewhere
Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game
521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 324 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite
Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 264 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"
Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 253 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “black box” labeled “Purchase Orders” was insufficient structure to perform the “generate purchase orders” function
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 278 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 214 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply
Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting
382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 265 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 348,416 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,288 times 1031 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
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,420 times 2200 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. Brit Systems, Inc.

30 Cited authorities

Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

Holding that "[w]e review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b) for failure to state a claim"

Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

Holding that a patentee's representation about claim language limits that language even if it is later deleted and added elsewhere

Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"

Holding that “black box” labeled “Purchase Orders” was insufficient structure to perform the “generate purchase orders” function

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply

Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."