Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• analogizing automatic processes that contemplate human intervention such as an automatic dishwasher which “automatically” washes dishes but must be loaded and turned on by a human
• rejecting defendant’s construction of “automatically” as “without human intervention” as too preclusive because the claim language did not prohibit human interaction entirely to initiate automated functions
• “In examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.”
• “In 13 examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.”
• “In examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.”
• “In examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories
  Federal Circuit· 2008-01-17· cited 199×
• Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-01-15· cited 147×
• Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-08-20· cited 139×
• Curtiss-Wright Flow Control, Corp. v. Velan, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-15· cited 122×
• Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-09-25· cited 40×
• Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-11-28· cited 33×
• Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
  N.D. Iowa· 2006-09-08· cited 21×
• Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-01· cited 16×
• Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp.
  E.D. Illinois· 2018-07-20· cited 4×
• W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2012-06-18· cited 4×
• Monsanto Co. v. Parr
  N.D. Indiana· 2008-04-22· cited 3×
• American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC
  D. Minnesota· 2009-10-13· cited 3×
• Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Baldwin Filters, Inc.
  N.D. Ohio· 2010-07-09· cited 2×
• Vehicle IP, LLC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-09-09· cited 2×
• Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc.
  D. Arizona· 2010-03-31· cited 1×
• Durr Systems, Inc. v. Fanuc Ltd.
  E.D. Michigan· 2006-10-31· cited 1×
• MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. MARS, INC.
  D. Kansas· 2007-07-05· cited 1×
• Cytyc Corp. v. TriPath Imaging, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2007-08-23· cited 1×
• Baldwin Graphic Systems v. Siebert
  Federal Circuit· 2008-01-15
• SIMPLIFICATION, LLC v. Block Financial Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2009-01-23

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-09-14· cited 3,761×
• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 3,226×
• Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-04-05· cited 2,940×
• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)
  Federal Circuit· 2004-08-11· cited 753×
• James Gillette v. Duane Delmore, and City of Eugene
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-11-10· cited 663×
• Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. De C.V.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-08-30· cited 652×
• Harolyn Pavao, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Jon Webster Pavao v. John Pagay County of Hawaii
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-09-30· cited 265×
• Rexnord Corporation v. The Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-11-15· cited 249×
• Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-10-22· cited 166×
• Tate Access Floors, Inc. And Tate Access Floors Leasing, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-02-07· cited 145×
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States Gypsum Company and L&w Supply Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1999-11-01· cited 105×
• The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-10-22· cited 102×
• Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Schering-Plough Corporation and Schering Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2003-02-21· cited 86×
• Middleton, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (Now Known as 3m Company)
  Federal Circuit· 2003-01-09· cited 83×
• Ballard Medical Products v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., and Sorenson Critical Care, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-10-09· cited 76×
• Riverwood International Corporation v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2003-03-31· cited 68×
• United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-05-04· cited 63×
• Voohries-Larson v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-02-22· cited 57×