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.
8 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 704 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 prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” | 152 |
| 2 | Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc. | green | “should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in evidence.” | 144 |
| 3 | Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc. | green | “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” | 120 |
| 4 | Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation | green | “even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, however, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” | 83 |
| 5 | Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc. | green | “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis . . . as it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” | 70 |
| 6 | Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc. | green | “extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” | 60 |
| 7 | Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. | green | “will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” | 59 |
| 8 | Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. | green | “in some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” | 16 |
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.