3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 39 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 Medrad, Inc. v. Mri Devices Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Medrad, Inc. v. Mri Devices Corp. Anchor | green | “we cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. rather, we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.” | 31 |
| 2 | Medrad, Inc. v. Mri Devices Corp. | green | “we cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum.” | 4 |
| 3 | Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. | green | “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.” | 4 |
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.