Brian James Lopez v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that “spring means” is a separate element from “hinged arm” because neither element can function as the other
• determining that “spring means” is a separate element from “hinged arm” because neither element can function as the other
• refusing to adopt a claim construction that would create “a physical impossibility” and therefore “ren- der[] the asserted claims nonsensical”
• refusing to adopt a claim construction that would create “a physical impossibility” and therefore “ren- der[] the asserted claims nonsensical”
• \Claims must be interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.\
• “Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).