Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “prosecution history, ... like the patent itself, has been designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence’ ” for claim construction
• explaining that “prosecution history, ... like the patent itself, has been designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence’ ” for claim construction
• explaining that “prosecution history, ... like the patent itself, has been designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence’ ” for claim construction
• distinguishing Insituform as limited to situations in which the prosecution history clearly demonstrates that \the amendment and alleged equivalent involve different aspects of the invention\
• rejecting the patentee’s argument that the “some other 05-1157 41 reason” rebuttal argument applied when the patentee allegedly understood the claim language to refer to the equivalent in question
• “The phrase ‘at least one’ in patent claims typically is construed to mean 21 SANDISK CORP v. KINGSTON TECH ‘one or more.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).