Douglas v. City of Mount Vernon, N.Y.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the trial court’s obligation during claim construction to assign a fixed and unambiguous meaning to the claim
• “A district court judge faced with an invalidity counterclaim challenging a patent that it concludes was not infringed may either hear the claim or dismiss it without prejudice, subject to review only for abuse of discretion.”
• “A district court judge faced with an invalidity counterclaim challenging a patent that it concludes was not infringed may either hear the claim or dismiss it without prejudice, subject to review only for abuse of discretion.”
• “The term ‘substantial’ is a meaningful modifier implying ‘approximate,’ rather than ‘perfect.’”
• “[I]n personam and subject matter jurisdictional facts must be pleaded, and proved when challenged, and . . . later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing.” (citing Mollan v. Torrance, 6 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 172, 173 (1824))
• “Because the plain language of the claim was clear and uncontradicted by anything in the written description or the figures, the district court should not have relied upon the written description, the figures, or the prosecution history to add limitations to the claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).