§Why CasetextPricing

Visto Corporation v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc.

Reply Memorandum re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Visto Corporation's Notice Of Motion And Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against Sproqit Technologies, Inc. // Reply to Visto Corporation's Supplemental Filing Regarding Motion for Preliminary Injuction

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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"

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.

    357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 364 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents

  4. Aquatex Industries v. Techniche Solutions

    419 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 134 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to constitute infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused product must contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent

  5. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.

    195 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 138 times
    Proceeding to determine whether differences between the two claims are patentably distinct after construing the claims

  6. Jonsson v. Stanley Works

    903 F.2d 812 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 109 times
    Holding that when two patents issued from continuation-in-part applications derived from one original application, the prosecution history of a claim limitation in the first patent to issue was properly applied to the same claim limitation in the second patent to issue

  7. Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory, Ltd.

    No. 02 C 7008 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2005)

    No. 02 C 7008. March 28, 2005 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RONALD GUZMAN, District Judge Cummins-Allison Corp. has sued Glory, Ltd., Glory Shoji Co., Inc. and Glory (U.S.A.), Inc. (collectively, "Glory") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,295,196 ("the '196 patent"). Defendants have filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) for summary judgment on the issue of infringement. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. Background The extensive factual background