Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that party had waived issue by failing to raise issue in opening brief
• concluding that the patent provided two alternative definitions for the disputed terms
• explaining that failure to raise an argument in an opening brief results in that argument being waived
• determining that a litigant who “d[oes] not urge a particular claim construction of the disputed language before the district court[] . . . waive[s] the right to do so on appeal”
• finding waiver where the party “stated during trial” that the “claim term is properly defined” (ci- tation modified)
• finding an intent to define a disputed term when the specification introduced the term with the phrase, “[a]s used herein,” but rejecting the definition as lacking reasonable clarity and precision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).