green
Positive treatment
Trending · 126 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
58.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…displaying the relationship between the toolface, the quill position, and the recommended toolface orientation, i.e., the toolface advisory, can be surprisingly useful in increasing accuracy of drilling.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…mere participation in, contributions to, and review of the work of another person would not necessarily create a joint work.
at p. 1370
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dareltech, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
we apply a 'presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DONGGUAN MEISHIDA E-COMMERCE CO., LTD. d/b/a JEEVONY v. KEVIN PATRICK KELLEY and MAGVENT, LLC
To determine whether there has been a clear and unmistakable surrender, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States
Cl. 766, 768 (2008) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tribal Health, LLC v. United States
Cl. 766, 768 (2008) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp.
PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wsou Investments LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.
That rule “only [applies, however,] when a district court announces a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 276 (emphasis in origi- nal). 2 Rule 4(a)(2) cannot save WSOU’s appeal in the ’133 pa- tent case from being dismissed because the district court clearly indicated that its bench ruling did not end the 2 Although the Supreme Court did not address “the operation of the Rule when the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is founded on a statute other than [28 U.S.C.] § 1291,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 274 n.4, we h…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wsou Investments LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.
That rule “only [applies, however,] when a district court announces a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 276 (emphasis in origi- nal). 2 Rule 4(a)(2) cannot save WSOU’s appeal in the ’133 pa- tent case from being dismissed because the district court clearly indicated that its bench ruling did not end the 2 Although the Supreme Court did not address “the operation of the Rule when the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is founded on a statute other than [28 U.S.C.] § 1291,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 274 n.4, we h…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
However, there is a presumption that “the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pactec, Inc. v. I.C.E. Service Group, Inc. (TWP2)
Cir. 2009) (citing PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks
The relevant inquiry is “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” Id. at 1159–60 (quoting PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Long Hua Technology Co., Ltd. v. A123 Systems, LLC
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2009), quoting PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Twist, Inc. v. B GSE Group, LLC
When determining whether a party has disclaimed a particular interpretation, a court inquires “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc.
(See id.) To Amgen, then, this case presented a situation distinctly different from those governed by binding precedent, as in the prior cases relied on by Coherus multiple independent arguments provided sufficient bases to overcome a prior art rejection, so each argument also gave rise to an estoppel. (/d. at 7) (citing PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nuance Communications Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd.
The Federal Circuit recognizes a “presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning,” but this presumption can be defeated if “it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ely Holdings Limited v. O'Keeffe's, Inc.
Cir. 2009) (quoting PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, 15 Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
We have explained that “[c]lear assertions made during prosecution in support of patentability, whether or not actually required to secure allowance of the claim, may also create an estoppel . . . because [t]he rele- vant inquiry is whether a competitor would reasonably be- lieve that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN Inc.
There is a “presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
So while Amgen did assert multiple reasons for why Holtz is distinguishable, our precedent instructs that estoppel can attach to each argument. "[W]here a patent applicant sets forth multiple bases to distinguish between its invention and the cited prior art, the separate arguments [can] create separate estoppels as long as the prior art was not distinguished based on the combination of these various grounds." PODS , 484 F.3d at 1367 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Southwall Techs. , 54 F.3d at 1581-83 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Energy Company LLC v. United States
Cl. 72, 76 (2017) (citing PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States
Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Not Dead Yet Manufacturing, Inc. v. Pride Solutions, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In support of that conclusion, the court quoted the Federal Circuit: "Where a patent applicant sets forth multiple bases to distinguish between its invention and the cited prior art, the separate arguments can create separate estoppels." PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Not Dead Yet Manufacturing Inc. v. Pride Solutions, LLC
“Where a patent applicant sets forth multiple bases to distinguish between its invention and the cited prior art, the separate arguments can create separate estoppels.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
“We have an obligation to assure ourselves of our jurisdiction before considering the merits of an appeal.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Investpic LLC v. International Business Machines Corp.
Int’l LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed.Cir.2012); American Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2011); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Varma
Cir. 2011); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alford v. United States
PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alford v. United States
Whether the court possesses jurisdiction to decide the merits of a ease is a threshold matter, see PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)), as a case cannot proceed if a court lacks jurisdiction to hear it, see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 , 126 S.Ct. 1235 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” (citation omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. v. United States
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 515, 527 (2013) (citing PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hicks v. United States
Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hatmaker v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. United States
PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, 1nc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard P. Watson v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gloria Treviño, Individually and as Next Friend for Robert Rodriguez Treviño v. United States
Whether the court possesses jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case is a threshold matter, see PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)), as a ease cannot proceed if a court lacks jurisdiction to hear it, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514 , 126 S.Ct. 1235 (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
The Court does not accept this reading. “[T]he same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kareem R. Rock v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Laerdal Medical Corp. v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The McVey Company, Inc. v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The Cheesecake Factory Inc. v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Bosch, Llc v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
(2×)
Similarly, in Pods, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 1 v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Innotek, Inc. v. United States
Such a finding of disclaimer is based on “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alps South, LLC. v. the Ohio Wood Co.
Cf. PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Captain Ross E. Joslyn v. United States
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pods
v.
Porta Stor
v.
Porta Stor
2006-1504.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
May 2, 2007.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
ERRATA
May 2, 2007
Appeal No. 2006-1504
Precedential Opinion, PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc.
Decided: April 27, 2007
On page 10, line 10, replace “Pandrol USA, 320 F.3d at 1367” with: “Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).”
On page 14, line 6, remove “[JA 45]”
On page 14, line 9-10, remove “[JA 64-65]”
On page 16, line 6, remove “[BB 38]”