green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.5 score
“the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation
he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation
the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. MARS, INC.
(2×)
At 88° Celsius, the protein would not be substantially denatured, but the denaturation would be substantial enough “to make a difference in the flow characteristics and its — and it being not very homogeneous.” Id. at 164:7-9.
discussed
Cited "see"
Superspeed, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.
See Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 , 126 S.Ct. 1332 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d .1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of…
discussed
Cited "see"
Biopolymer Engineering, Inc. v. Immudyne, Inc.
See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (Patent Act section 112 *438 “requires us to look to the language of the claims [made in the patent] to determine what ‘the applicant regards as his invention’.”), cer t. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 , 126 S.Ct. 1332 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006); see also Coker v. Coker; 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.1983) (holding that no single provision taken alone will be given controlling effect; rather, all the provisions must be considered with reference to the whole instrument).
cited
Cited "see"
Adams v. Harrison
See Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083 , 1087 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1171 , 126 S.Ct. 1333 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
Soroka v. Garcia
See Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083 , 1087 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1171 , 126 S.Ct. 1333 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chic Optic, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc.
See Astrazeneca AB v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 384 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2004). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 , 126 S.Ct. 1332 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)).
cited
Cited "see"
Brown v. Roe
See Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1333 , 164 L.Ed.2d 49 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Vancouver, Washington
v.
Western States Paving Co., Inc.
v.
Western States Paving Co., Inc.
No. 05-591.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 2006.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.