Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook 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 where a specification uses a term only in a specific context, that term should not be construed to have a broader scope
• holding that where a specification uses a term only in a specific context, that term should not be construed to have a broader scope
• holding that where a specification uses a term only in a specific context, that term should not be construed to have a broader scope
• holding that where a specification uses a term only in a specific context, that term should not be construed to have a broader scope
• holding that where two terms are used interchangeably, it “is akin to a definition equating the two”
• holding that a claim term, “graft,” was limited to “intraluminal graft” because, inter alia, the invention only disclosed “intraluminal grafts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).