Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.
350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 247 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that a district court may not correct an error unless "the correction is not subject to reasonable debate"
Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
391 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Tex. 2005) Cited 47 timesHolding preliminary infringement contentions "providing vague, conclusory language or simply mimicking the language of the claims when identifying infringement fail to comply" with Eastern District of Texas' analogous local patent rales
EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC v. SENSUS USA INC
NO. 6:09-cv-116 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2010) Cited 15 timesFinding infringement contentions insufficient because they do not identify all accused instrumentalities or how each meets the asserted claim elements
Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07-CV-559 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009) Cited 13 timesFinding a lack of diligence outweighed other factors, even where importance weighed slightly in favor of amendment and prejudice was insubstantial
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer Inc.
566 F. Supp. 2d 910 (W.D. Wis. 2008) Cited 10 timesHolding that the certificate of correction would not be effective for purposes of enforcement unless the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit or amended its complaint
Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. T-Mobile USA
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-264-DF-CE (E.D. Tex. Jun. 30, 2010) Cited 1 timesRelying on a provisional application "which is fully incorporated by reference" in construing the claims
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 24,008 times 18 Legal AnalysesProviding for service via CM/ECF Systems
Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents
35 U.S.C. § 251 Cited 467 times 73 Legal AnalysesDescribing the reissue of defective patents
Section 254 - Certificate of correction of Patent and Trademark Office mistake
35 U.S.C. § 254 Cited 72 times 10 Legal AnalysesAuthorizing corrections of errors made by the PTO