7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 31 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 Rhodia Chimie & Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rhodia Chimie & Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc. Anchor | green | “the purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.” | 6 |
| 2 | Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. | green | “it is axiomatic that a dependent claim cannot be broader than the claim from which it depends.” | 6 |
| 3 | Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation | green | “to disavow claim scope, the specification must contain expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” | 5 |
| 4 | Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc. | green | “hen the preferred embodiment is described in the specification as the invention itself, the claims are not necessarily entitled to a scope broader than that embodiment.” | 4 |
| 5 | Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC | green | “we do not read limitations from the specification into claims” | 4 |
| 6 | Curtiss-Wright Flow Control, Corp. v. Velan, Inc. | green | “eading an additional limitation from a dependent claim into an independent claim would not only make that additional limitation superfluous, it might render the dependent claim invalid.” | 3 |
| 7 | Versa Corporation v. Ag-Bag International Limited | green | “the doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope.” | 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.