Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems (2002)
green
· 287 citation events
across 44 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed.
“We have consistently interpreted the word ‘or’ to mean that the items in the sequence are alternatives to each other.”
green
Edge Systems LLC v. Aguila (2015)
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002)).
green
Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp. (2017)
Id. at 1309, 1316.
green
B-K Lighting, Inc. v. Vision3 Lighting (2013)
“Anticipation is typically established by one skilled in the art who must ‘identify each claim element, state the witness[’] interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference.’ ” Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1091 (S.D.Cal.2008) (quoting Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315).
green
Cordance Corp. v. Amazon. Com, Inc. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2002) ("It is not our task, nor is it the task of the district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out....
green
Mangosoft v. Oracle (2006)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
citing Apotex USA, Inc. v . Merck & Co., 254 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
green
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp. (2006)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citing Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 254 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed.Cir.2001)).
green
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc. (2020)
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
green
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc. (2015)
Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002) (“It is not our task, nor is it the task of the district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of [infringement] has been made out, particularly at the summary judgment stage.).
green
Gen-Probe Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co. (2012)
“The burden of proving invalidity on summary judgment is high.” Id. at 1316.
green
Nextec Applications v. BROOKWOOD COMPANIES, INC. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1715 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004); Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002). 1.
green
Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. (2007)
See Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1316 (“to accept confusing or generalized testimony as evidence of invalidity is improper.
“to accept confusing or generalized testimony as evidence of invalidity is improper. The risk is great that the confusion or generality is the result, not of an inarticulate witness or complex subject matter, but of a witness who is unable to provide the essential testimony.”
green
Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (2006)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citation omitted), but the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence continues to be borne by the challenger.
green
AMERICAN REGENT, INC. v. SOMERSET THERAPEUTICS, LLC (2025)
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed.
green
Yue v. Hanna (2024)
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315.
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
“Evidence of invalidity must be clear as well as convincing.”
Cir. 2015); see also Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed.
“These are not technical terms or art, and do not require elaborate interpretation.”
green
UV Partners, Inc. v. Proximity Systems, Inc. (2022)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
green
Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. Legrand (2022)
See Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1310 (“If the body of the claim ‘sets out the complete invention,’ the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”). 2. ’117 Patent, Claim 24 This claim recites: 24.
“If the body of the claim ‘sets out the complete invention,’ the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”
green
Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. Legrand (2022)
See Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1310 (“If the body of the claim ‘sets out the complete invention,’ the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”). 2. ’117 Patent, Claim 24 This claim recites: 24.
“If the body of the claim ‘sets out the complete invention,’ the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”
green
BOS GMBH & Co. KG v. Macauto USA, Inc. (2021)
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 , 1315 (Fed.
“Evidence of invalidity must be clear as well as convincing.”
green
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. (2020)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed.
green
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc. (2020)
“To overcome this presumption of validity, the party challenging a patent must prove facts supporting a determination of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.; Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
green
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc. (2019)
“To overcome this presumption of validity, the party challenging a patent must prove facts supporting a determination of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.; Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.
Computer Sys., Inc. , 308 F.3d 1304 , 1315-16 (Fed.
"testimony concerning anticipation ... must identify each claim element, state the witnesses' interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference."
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315-16.
green
Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. (2016)
Cf. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2002). (“It is not our task, nor is it the task of the district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out, particularly at the summary judgment stage.).
green
Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc. (2015)
Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315.
green
Cot'n Wash, Inc. v. Henkel Corp. (2014)
B at 21-22) In response, the Henkel defendants aver that Dr. Kong has not offered an explanation of “why a [person of ordinary skill] would need to engage in undue experimentation to practice the substantially water-free liquid detergents of Chang(D.I. 215 at 3) On the record at bar, the court will not engage in an “attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out, particularly at the summary judgment stage.” 22 …
green
Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc. (2014)
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1316 (“It is not our task, nor is it the task of the district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out, particularly at the summary judgment stage.).
“It is not our task, nor is it the task of the district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out, particularly at the summary judgment stage.
green
SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (2013)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 , 1310, 64 USPQ2d 1832, 1837 (Fed.Cir.2002); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368 , 1373-74, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (Fed.Cir. 2001).
green
SSI Systems International Inc. v. Tek Global S.R.L. (2013)
Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002). . 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). .
green
Virtual Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (2013)
Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002) (collecting cases).
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315; U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at 1563 . b.
green
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. (2011)
Id. at 1316. a.
green
Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002) (conclusory testimony as opposed to a detailed explanation on how each claim element is disclosed in prior art reference is not sufficient to prove anticipation).
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 , 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted); TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (“Mere denials or conclusory statements are insufficient.”).
“Mere denials or conclusory statements are insufficient.”
green
Borgwarner, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002).
green
Cif Licensing, LLC v. Agere Systems Inc. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002)).
green
Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2002). 11.
green
K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2002). a.
green
Rothschild v. Cree, Inc. (2010)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002)).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has found that invalidity of a patent must be proven using “clear and convincing evidence.” Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2002).
green
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2008)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2002).
green
Boydstun Metal Works, Inc. v. Cottrell, Inc. (2007)
Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2002).
green
Ricoh Corp. v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. (2007)
Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315-16, citing Tech-Search, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 995 , 123 S.Ct. 436 , 154 L.Ed.2d 363 (2002).
green
RESPIRONICS, INC. v. Invacare Corp. (2007)
Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (citing cases); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1563 (Fed.
citing cases
green
ADE CORP. v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (2003)
Cf. Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1312 (“It is' well established that statements made during prosecution are used to interpret the scope and meaning of ambiguous claim terminology.”) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 ); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1988), cer t. denied, 488 U.S. 986 , 109 S.Ct. 542 , 102 L.Ed.2d 572 (1988) (“[Arguments made during prosecution history are relevant in determining the meaning of the terms at issu…
“It is' well established that statements made during prosecution are used to interpret the scope and meaning of ambiguous claim terminology.”