green
Positive treatment
Hot · 78 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 19×
45.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 ·
…claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…he specification may define claim terms 'by implication' such that the meaning may be 'found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.
at p. 1269
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Wyeth v. Sandoz, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
Where a patentee chooses to act as its own lexicographer, the patentee “must clearly express that *825 intent in the written description.” Helmsderfer, 527 F.3d at 1381 (emphasis added); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 ; Bell Atl., 262 F.3d at 1268; but cf. Bell Atl, 262 F.3d at 1267-68 (“[A] claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.... [T]he specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (citations & quotations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ASK Chemicals LLC v. Novis Works, LLC
he patentees defined the term "mode" by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the '786 patent specification.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
3M Innovative Properties Co. v. GDC, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
as a starting point, we give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corporation
thus, when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term by implication'.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.
thus, when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term 'by implication'.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Laser Light Technologies v. Brick Markers, USA
it is true that limitations stated in dependent claims are normally not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hd Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.
xtrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim lan- guage from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
10X Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc.
when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term "by implication.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Innovaport LLC v. IKEA North America Services LLC
t is generally impermissible to limit claim terms by a preferred embodiment or inferences drawn from the description of a preferred embodiment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
CliniComp International, Inc. v. Cerner Corporation
xtrinsic evidence . . . may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the 28 claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file 1 history.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Echologics, LLC v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc.
xtrinsic evidence . . . may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the 11 claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file 12 history.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC
hen a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term 'by implication.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Super Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Huawei Device Co. Ltd.
when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term by implication
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Davies Innovations, Inc. v. SIG Sauer, Inc., et al.
extrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Frontline Placement Technologies v. Crs, Inc.
hen a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term by implication.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nextec Applications v. BROOKWOOD COMPANIES, INC.
he specification may define claim terms 'by implication' such that the meaning may be 'found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Laboratoires Perouse v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
he specification may define claim terms 'by implication' such that the meaning may be 'found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Phillips v. Awh Corporation
claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mobility WorkX, LLC v. Ericsson, Inc.; Mobility WorkX, LLC v. Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, and Nokia of America Corporation
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2002). “[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.” Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
WAPP TECH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shibumi Shade, Inc. v. Beach Shade LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Covad Communications Group, Inc.; 262 F.3d at 1279 (holding that a determination of no infringement under the all elements rule “must be remised upon a proper claim construction”); E.D.N.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Electrolysis Prevention Solutions LLC v. Daimler Truck North America LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The court should give the disputed claim terms “their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pactec, Inc. v. I.C.E. Service Group, Inc. (TWP2)
(Docs. 202, 197.) The Special Master recommends the term “lifting frame” be construed as “a grid structure having a plurality of a parallel lift bars connected to a center support and a plurality of lifting hooks, wherein each lifting hook is designed for receiving one lifting strap connector.” (Doc. 195, at 28.) Special Master Bayer grounds his recommended construction in the principle that claims are construed in accordance with how they would be understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art, see Covad Communications, 262 F.3d at 1268, and that there is intrinsic evidence indica…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brian Robert Blazer v. Best Bee Brothers LLC
Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1280-81.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Micro Focus International PLC
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Bank of America Corp.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Swivel Rental & Supply L L C v. Petro Pull L L C
Network Servs., Inc., 262 F.3d at 1268, 1273.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dareltech, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot Co., LLC
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Covidien Lp v. Advanced Skeletal Innovations LLC
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1268 (“The prosecution history is considered to determine whether or not there were any express representations made in obtaining the patent regarding the scope and meaning of the claims.” (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 )); see also 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd., 539 F.3d 1354, 1364-65 (Fed.Cir.2008) (consulting prosecution history to “use ... as support for the construction already discerned from the claim language”); Dunhall Pharm., Inc. v. Discus Dental, Inc., 243 F.3d 564 , 2000 WL 1608803 , at *4 (Fed.Cir.2000) (unpublished) (“The exchange b…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide Corporation
(2×)
Network Sens., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d at 1270 (giving narrower construction to claim term “mode” as distinct from “rate” where “patentees, throughout the specification, use the terms ‘rate’ and ‘mode’ to refer to separate and distinct concepts”). 13 TWW’s proposed construction — “an opening or hollow that forms a holder for something” — would disregard this distinction, while Intex’s proposed construction — “a structure that fits and holds onto an inserted part, so that the structure and the part are detachably connected to each other�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
INVISTA North America S.à.r.l. v. M & G USA Corp.
The court does not find that the patentee clearly redefined the broad term “comprising.” Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“In redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, the intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.” (Citation omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ia Labs Ca, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
(4×)
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
(2×)
Finally, this court specifically recognized that inventors may define terms in the specification "implicitly," and, like in Phillips , cited Bell Atlantic Network Services Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001) for the proposition that "[a] claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition." Infineon, 318 F.3d at 1088.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA Inc.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Verizon Clinton Center Drive Corp.
Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp.
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
The presumption can be overcome “where the patentee has chosen to be his own lexicographer.” Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’n Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 , 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[T]he patentee may act as his own lexicographer by using the *718 specification to define terms either expressly or ‘by implication.’ ” Id. at 1269.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Attic Tent, Inc. v. Copeland
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, it compares the properly construed claims to the accused device.” Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. ADVANCED DECOY RESEARCH, INC.
(3×)
Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Samuel J. HESTER, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Samuel J. HESTER, Defendant-Appellant
97-9232.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 24, 2001.
Steven Lane, King & Spaulding, Washington, DC, for DefendanL-Appellant., Dean Soble Daskal, John Larkin Lynch, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Black, Wilson, Roney.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (3) · S.D. California (2) · S.D. New York (2) · E.D. Texas (2) · D. Delaware (1) · D. New Hampshire (1) · E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
BY THE COURT:
Upon the Court’s own motion, the opinion previously rendered in this case on August 9, 2001, is vacated. The Court will hold the case in abeyance for further consideration until the en banc court in Nos. 00-13347 & 00-13447, United States v. Sanchez, issues its decision.