Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Federal Circuit has repeatedly held “limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims”
• explaining that court are “not required to assume that the jury believed all or indeed any . . . excul- patory evidence” in deciding JMOL motions
• rejecting a proposed construction that “would render claim 2 completely superfluous and redundant of claim 1”
• finding party had not sufficiently rebutted the presumption that independent claim should “not be so limited in order to preserve the distinction” between that claim and dependent claim
• finding the defendant’s sought claim construction without merit because the disputed term had a clear and well-defined meaning and because the defendant sought to borrow a limitation appearing directly in the preferred embodiment section of the specification
• court determining whether to overturn a jury verdict is “not required to assume that the jury believed all or indeed any ... exculpatory evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).