Azure Networks, LLC v. Csr, Plc

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is a heavy presumption in favor of the ordinary meaning
• stating that “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying a com- bined analysis and finding a patent owner lacked an exclu- sionary right because it transferred away all substantial rights
• “There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”
• “There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”
• “There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America
  Federal Circuit· 2016-05-17· cited 19×
• United States v. Knowles
  D. South Carolina· 2016-09-14· cited 8×
• Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2019-05-10· cited 2×
• Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.
  W.D. Tennessee· 2015-02-26
• Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co.
  E.D. Texas· 2015-11-10
• Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd.
  E.D. Texas· 2015-11-30
• Alacritech, Inc. v. Century Link Communications LLC
  E.D. Texas· 2017-09-21
• P & RO Solutions Group, Inc. v. CiM Maintenance, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2017-03-31
• East Coast Sheet Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Autodesk
  D. New Hampshire· 2015-01-15
• A.L.M. Holding Company v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2026-05-19

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2014-06-02· cited 763×
• Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)
  Federal Circuit· 2004-08-11· cited 753×
• Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-11-18· cited 719×
• Ccs Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation and Its Division Life Fitness
  Federal Circuit· 2002-05-30· cited 492×
• Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-03-14· cited 465×
• Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-01-28· cited 236×
• Vaupel Textilmaschinen Kg and Vaupel North America v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A. And American Trim Products, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants
  Federal Circuit· 1991-09-13· cited 212×
• Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-10-22· cited 166×
• Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
  Federal Circuit· 2003-09-22· cited 137×
• Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2001-03-14· cited 135×
• Morrow Ex Rel. General Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust of at Home Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-09-19· cited 124×
• Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-08-17· cited 124×
• Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-03-21· cited 122×
• Sunrace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. And Sun Victory Trading Co., Inc. v. Sram Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2003-07-17· cited 121×
• Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 2000-03-24· cited 113×
• Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-07-08· cited 95×
• Propat International Corp. v. RPost, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-01-04· cited 87×
• Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-05-14· cited 86×
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-04-09· cited 83×