Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 1,907 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross Anchor | green | “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” | 683 |
| 2 | Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. | green | “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” | 475 |
| 3 | Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross | green | “in some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood wo…” | 288 |
| 4 | United States Surgical Corporation v. Ethicon, Inc. And Johnson & Johnson Hospital Services, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants | green | “claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement.” | 104 |
| 5 | Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc. | green | “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” | 95 |
| 6 | Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. | green | “a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed,” | 77 |
| 7 | All Dental Prodx, LLC and Dmg Dental-Material Gesellschaft Mbh v. Advantage Dental Products, Inc | green | “the primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent …” | 56 |
| 8 | Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International | green | “indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” | 48 |
| 9 | Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs Corporation | green | “a claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent.” | 42 |
| 10 | United States Surgical Corporation v. Ethicon, Inc. And Johnson & Johnson Hospital Services, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants | green | “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” | 39 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.