Gemstar-Tv Guide International, Inc. And Starsight Telecast, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, and Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Intervenor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an accused product did not infringe because it “relied on a different technology that could produce results unattainable by” the corresponding structure in the subject patent
• “Because co-inventors need not contribute to the subject matter of every claim of the 12 patent, inventorship is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.”
• “[The patentee’s] statements in the prosecution history do not indicate a disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope, but merely provide an example to illustrate differences between the invention and the prior art.”
• “The ordinary . . . meaning of a claim term may be determined by reviewing . . . the claims themselves; dictionaries and treatises; and the written description, the drawings, and the prosecution history.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).