11 Cited authorities

Barany-Snyder v. Weiner
539 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 438 times
Affirming district court's decision not to address issue raised for the first time in a reply brief
IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 263 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps
Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 212 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”
Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.
358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 205 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim language that required heating "dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F." meant exactly what the ordinary meaning suggested even though all agreed that heating dough itself — rather than the oven — to that temperature would burn the dough to a crisp and leave it as inedible as a "charcoal briquet"
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.
587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 115 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”
Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC
641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 71 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding claim indefinite because it included both apparatus limitations - "buffer means," "fractional encoding means," "second buffer means," "trellis encoding means" - and method limitations - "transmitting the trellis encoded frames"
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co.
CASE NO. 1:10 CV 1370 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2010) Cited 9 times
CASE NO. 1:10 CV 1370. November 12, 2010 Memorandum of Opinion and Order PATRICIA GAUGHAN, District Judge INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted (Doc. 32). This is a patent dispute. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is DENIED. FACTS The following facts are taken from the complaint and are presumed to be true, as the Court must in a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff
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 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,325 times 1038 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 3,465 times 2245 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."

WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

Affirming district court's decision not to address issue raised for the first time in a reply brief

Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps

Holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”

Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”

Finding claim indefinite because it included both apparatus limitations - "buffer means," "fractional encoding means," "second buffer means," "trellis encoding means" - and method limitations - "transmitting the trellis encoded frames"

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

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

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."