green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.5 score
“the public notice function of patents requires that a patentee be prevented from expressly stating during prosecution that the claims do not cover a particular device and then later suing for infringement by that same device.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc.
(2×)
even where the ordinary meaning of the claim is clear, it is well-established that 'the prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wasinger v. Levi Strauss & Co.
the public notice function of patents requires that a patentee be prevented from expressly stating during prosecution that the claims do not cover a particular device and then later suing for infringement by that same device.
discussed
Cited "see"
Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral Inc., 249 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2001) (affirming the district court’s finding that prosecution history estoppel barred the application of the doctrine of equivalents), vacated by 535 U.S. 1109 , 122 S.Ct. 2349 , 153 L.Ed.2d 152 (2002), remanded to 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smithkline Beecham Corp. (Doing Business as Glaxosmithkline) v. Excel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Abc Co.
See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral Inc., 249 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2001) (affirming the district court’s finding that prosecution history estoppel barred the application of the doctrine of equivalents), vacated by 535 U.S. 1109 , 122 S.Ct. 2349 , 153 L.Ed.2d 152 (2002), remanded to 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Semitool, Inc.
v.
Novellus Systems, Inc.
v.
Novellus Systems, Inc.
01-423.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 3, 2002.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (3)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., ante, p. 722.