Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the specification taught that the invention as a whole, not merely a preferred embodiment, provided for “play” in the positioning of floor panels
• explaining that the applicant never “retract[ed] or modified] the representations that secured allowance of the original claims”
• explaining that “[b]ecause the applicant invoked play to overcome the prior art, [it] cannot now contend that the [patent-in-suit] claims [the invention] without play”
• explaining that “where the specification makes clear at various points that the claimed invention is narrower than the claim language might imply, it is entirely permissible and proper to limit the claims”
• noting that the court must “immerse[ ] itself in the specification, the prior art, and other evidence, such as the understanding of skilled artisans at the time of invention, to discern the context and normal usage of the words in the patent claim”
• “[I]t is impermissible to read the one and only disclosed embodiment into a claim without other indicia that the patentee so intended to limit the invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).