From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Linsenmeyer v. U.S.

U.S.
May 24, 2004
541 U.S. 1063 (2004)

Summary

limiting the claims by requiring the objective of "play," even though the term is not cited in the claims because "the #907 specification read as a whole leads to the inescapable conclusion that the claimed invention must include play in every embodiment."

Summary of this case from Conocophillips Co. v. In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 03-1172.

May 24, 2004.


C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 92 Fed. Appx. 101.


Summaries of

Linsenmeyer v. U.S.

U.S.
May 24, 2004
541 U.S. 1063 (2004)

limiting the claims by requiring the objective of "play," even though the term is not cited in the claims because "the #907 specification read as a whole leads to the inescapable conclusion that the claimed invention must include play in every embodiment."

Summary of this case from Conocophillips Co. v. In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc.

noting that “if the meaning of [the term] is ambiguous, [the insurer's] definition is entitled to deference under the applicable arbitrary and capricious standard of review”; yet, the insurer's “definition of the term nonetheless must be reasonable before deference is conferred”

Summary of this case from Riggs v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
Case details for

Linsenmeyer v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:LINSENMEYER ET UX. v. UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 24, 2004

Citations

541 U.S. 1063 (2004)
124 S. Ct. 2390

Citing Cases

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura

( Id. at p. 415.) The high court has just granted certiorari in another case involving generic marketing…

U.S. v. Serrano-Beauvaix

In those cases, too, courts have presumed that the defendant was prejudiced because of the extraordinary…