Curtiss-Wright Flow Control, Corp. v. Velan, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[c]laim drafters can also use different terms to define the exact same subject matter”
• noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4
• noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4
• stressing that “a dependent claim must add a limitation to those recited in the independent claim”
• explaining the presumption that independent claims do not include the limitations added by their dependent claims
• describing a general rule of claim construction that interpretations “that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous” should be avoided

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).