Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, as a general rule, the words “an” or “a” in a patent claim carry the meaning of “one or more”
• stating that subsequent use of \said\ is understood to refer back to the same claim term
• emphasizing that “a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’” (cleaned up)
• noting that the claim term “said” is an “anaphoric phrase[ ], referring to the initial antecedent phrase”
• noting that the use of “said” or “the” before a claim element is an anaphoric phrase
• stating that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure “describes the need, in most cases, for claim terms to have proper ante- cedent bases”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-09-21· cited 236×
• Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-08· cited 93×
• Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-02-21· cited 80×
• Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-01-08· cited 55×
• O1 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Logmein, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-07-31· cited 51×
• TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-01-31· cited 46×
• Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-10-09· cited 42×
• Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Novel Laboratories, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-04-22· cited 38×
• Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-02-04· cited 37×
• Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-02-10· cited 37×
• Celgene Corporation v. Peter
  Federal Circuit· 2019-07-30· cited 36×
• Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-04-13· cited 29×
• Harari v. Lee
  Federal Circuit· 2011-09-01· cited 28×
• The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-04-06· cited 27×
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co.
  D. Delaware· 2010-02-24· cited 26×
• Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network
  Federal Circuit· 2021-01-05· cited 24×
• Wyeth v. Sandoz, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 2010-07-15· cited 23×
• Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.
  District of Columbia· 2018-08-30· cited 23×
• Rowe International Corp. v. Ecast, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2008-08-25· cited 14×
• Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-10-09· cited 13×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-07-13· cited 234×
• The Johns Hopkins University, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Becton Dickinson and Company v. Cellpro, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1998-08-11· cited 210×
• Kcj Corporation v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. And Kci Therapeutic Services, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-08-18· cited 131×
• Abtox, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Exitron Corporation, Adir Jacob, and Mdt Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1997-08-01· cited 112×
• Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred Bander
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-22· cited 106×
• Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-02· cited 63×
• Vanguard Products Corporation v. Parker Hannifin Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2000-12-14· cited 63×
• Afg Industries, Inc. And Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. v. Cardinal Ig Company, Inc., and Andersen Windows, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-07-13· cited 23×
• Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-09-19· cited 22×

Other cases named Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-01-27
• Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-01-27