5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 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 Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc. Anchor | green | “in those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper.” | 8 |
| 2 | Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. Bp Chemicals Limited and Sterling Chemicals, Inc. | green | “we share the district court's view that it is unlikely that an inventor would define the invention in a way that excluded the preferred embodiment, or that persons of skill in this field would read the specification in such a way.” | 5 |
| 3 | White v. Dunbar | green | “t is unjust to the public, as well as an evasion of the law, to construe in a manner different from the plain import of its terms. this has been so often expressed in the opinions of this court that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.” | 4 |
| 4 | Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. De C.V. | green | “the claims must be read in view of the specification, but limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.” | 4 |
| 5 | Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Cross | green | “onsultation of extrinsic evidence is particularly appropriate to ensure that understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is not entirely at variance with the understanding of one skilled in the art.” | 3 |
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.