Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• construing the word “to” according to its ordinary usage because there no indication it took on specialized meaning
• “in accord with our settled practice we construe the claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written-it”
• “[W]e construe the claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written it.”
• “Even a nonsensical re- sult does not require the court to redraft the claims of the [patent].” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Even a nonsensical result does not require the court to redraft the claims of the [patent].” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[C]ourts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).