Akinlade v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that claim construction “tether[s] the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inven- tor actually invented”
• finding claim differentia- tion to be rebutted where “the specifications do not disclose a body that consists of multiple pieces or indicate that the body is anything other than a one-piece body”
• construing the claim limitation in question to 14 CAVE CONSULTING GRP., LLC v. OPTUMINSIGHT, INC. “tether the claims to what the specifications indicate the inventor actually invented”
• “It is axiomatic that the claim construction process entails more than viewing the claim language in isolation. Claim language must always be read in view of the written description.”
• “To disavow claim scope, the specification must contain ‘expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.’”
• “the specifications and the claims indicate that the ‘retainer member’ and the ‘needle holder’ need not be two separate pieces”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).