Davis v. Berski

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to adopt a construction that “would not merely render the dependent claims superfluous, but would mean that those claims would have no scope at all”
• “[A]s we have cautioned, courts ordinarily should not limit ‘the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’”
• “[T]he district court was correct in seeking to give meaning to the term ‘fastening stem’ by looking to the meaning of the words ‘fastening’ and ‘stem’ as used in the patent.”
• “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.”
• “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular em- bodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding inde- pendent claim must cover that embodiment as well.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).