Eaton Corporation v. Rockwell International Corporation and Meritor Automotive Incorporated (Now Known as Arvin-Meritor, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that preamble limited claim where claim referred to “said vehicle master clutch” and “said drive train” and those terms were described in the preamble
• finding that, where a limitation stated “during the gear shift ratio,” it referred back to the particular sequence defined by the preamble (emphasis in Eaton Corp.)
• noting that claim drafter may opt to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the invention
• distinguishing Bard and finding that preamble was limiting where the manipulation and operation of the structure described by the preamble gave meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps of the claim
• “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”
• “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).