Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, 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 “coupled to” should “be construed broadly so as to allow an indirect attachment”
• holding that claim differentiation required an expansive reading of the term “coupled to” based on the language of the patent at issue
• stating that jurisdiction may lie over defendant simply by its acknowledgment in the briefing on appeal that it is sub- ject to jurisdiction in Michigan
• stating that jurisdiction may lie over defendant simply by its acknowledgment in the briefing on appeal that it is subject to jurisdiction in Michigan
• holding “[i]n light of a dependent claim that clearly states an indirect attachment of the . . . structure, the scope of independent claim 1 is presumed to be broader to allow for other types of indirect attachments”
• finding legal error where district court “failed to analyze [defendant’s] contacts with the United States as a whole [under Rule 4(k)(2)] and imposed an improper burden on the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).