4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 16 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 Power Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens Ag.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Power Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens Ag Anchor | green | “hile interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored, where neither the plain meaning nor the patent itself commands a difference in scope between two terms, they may be construed identically.” | 5 |
| 2 | Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom, Inc. | green | “hat a device is capable of being modified to operate in an infringing manner is not sufficient, by itself, to support a finding of infringement.” | 4 |
| 3 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC | green | “a claim could be indefinite if a term does not have proper antecedent basis where such basis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning is not reasonably ascertainable” | 4 |
| 4 | Power Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens Ag | green | “interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored” | 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.