Applegate, Candra Nicole

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred by effectively treating “program” and “user interface code” as nonce words and concluding in turn that the claims recited means-plus-function limitations
• holding that the district court erred by effectively treating “program” and “user interface code” as nonce words and concluding in turn that the claims recited means-plus-function limitations
• holding that the district court erred by effectively treating \program\ and \user interface code\ as nonce words and concluding in turn that the claims recited means-plus-function limitations
• concluding that the disputed terms are used “not as 24 generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions, but rather as specific references to conventional . . . code, existing in 25 prior art at the time of the inventions.”
• concluding that the disputed terms are used “not as generic terms or black box recita- tions of structure or abstractions, but rather as specific ref- erences to conventional . . . code, existing in prior art at the time of the inventions.”
• concluding that the disputed terms are used “not as generic terms or black box recita- tions of structure or abstractions, but rather as specific ref- erences to conventional . . . code, existing in prior art at the time of the inventions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).