Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an independent claim including the limitation “magnetic member” includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting “magnetic member” to a magnet
• holding that, “as a general rule[,] preamble language is not treated as limiting.’’
• observing that “‘adapted to’” is sometimes used in claim drafting to carry the broader meaning,” i.e., “‘suitable for’ rather than ‘made to’”
• relying largely on figures to construe “free end” to mean extending rearwardly and unattached to part of frame
• noting, in patent infringement case, the frequent admonishment that district courts are “not to issue sweeping injunctions against potentially infringing activities . . . , but to restrict the scope of the injunction to the particular adjudicated infringing activity”
• looking to figures of the patent to establish a term’s correct construction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).