Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that. district court's claim construction was law of tne case for purposes of trial
• warning that courts should not “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claims absent a clear disclaimer of claim scope.”
• explaining that “different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope” (citation omitted)
• stating that open-ended claims are allowed based on the specific facts and history of an invention
• explaining that \different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope\ (citation omitted)
• noting that district court walk a difficult “tightrope” in using the specification to interpret a claim’s meaning, but not importing limitations from the specification into the claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).