cited Cited "see" Reeder v. City of Paris See Steadman v. Texas Rangers, 179 F.3d 360, 366 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1115 , 120 S.Ct. 933 , 144 L.Ed.2d 812 (2000); Douglass v. United Servs.

discussed Cited "see" Rackman v. Microsoft Corp. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed.Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 933 , 145 L.Ed.2d 812 (2000). “[T]he construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372, 116 S.Ct. 1384 , 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp. In addition, “illegal or fraudulent lobbying activities that would normally be immunized by Noerr-Pen-nington lose .their protection if they occur in a judicial or quasi-judicial setting[.j” Boone, 841 F.2d at 895-96 ; see also Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1307 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“Noerr-Pennington does not protect conduct which is otherwise unlawful.”), cert. denied, 528 *1042 U.S. 1115, 120 S.Ct. 933 , 145 L.Ed.2d 812 (2000); In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings and Loan Securities Litigation, 794 F.Supp. 1424, 1448 (D.Ariz.1992) (“Noerr-Pennington…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." A.K. Stamping Co. v. Instrument Specialties Co. See Mars Inc. v. Kabushiki-Kaisha Nippon Conlux, 24 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“infringement of patent rights ... is not generally recognized as coming within the rubric of ‘unfair competition’ ”); see also Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1306 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“[t]he patent laws will not preempt such claims if they include additional elements not found in the federal patent law cause of action”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 933 , 145 L.Ed.2d 812 (2000).