Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. coolsavings.com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.”’
• reversing finding of prosecution history estoppel where “the applicants did not amend this language regarding the location of the terminals”
• “‘such as’ introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to the exemplary species.”
• “[Dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”
• “In general, a 22 preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give 23 life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim.”
• “dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).