Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 550 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.
239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 515 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S
108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 337 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.
174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 274 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions
Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 367 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that the grant of a preliminary injunction was based on more than an unwarranted presumption of irreparable harm where the district court found the patentee would suffer lost market position and obstructed business relationships in the market
ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.
159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 200 times 2 Legal AnalysesAffirming the district court's decision not to allow a party to present a particular patent as a prior art reference at trial because that party did not produce the reference during the designated discovery period
Bell Howell Document Mgmt. v. Altek Sys
132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 200 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that when the intrinsic evidence is unambiguous, it is improper for the court to rely on extrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.
163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 189 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim is identical to a claim in the original patent only if the scope of the two claims is identical
Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Bridwell
103 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 194 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding failure to bring suit against other potential infringers may be relevant to an analysis of irreparable harm if it indicates a willingness to accept royalty-type damages in lieu of market exclusivity
BIC LEISURE PRODUCTS v. WINDSURFING INTERN
1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 164 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that district court did not err in admitting defendant's intervening rights defense, despite the fact that it was not asserted in defendant's pleadings nor litigated during the liability stage of trial
Section 252 - Effect of reissue
35 U.S.C. § 252 Cited 290 times 22 Legal AnalysesStating that a reissued patent shall have the same effect as the original patent “in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical ”
Section 301 - Citation of prior art and written statements
35 U.S.C. § 301 Cited 117 times 15 Legal AnalysesReferring to “the proper meaning of a patent claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324 ”