Glisper v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a Markman hearing is not necessary when the disputed claim term is neither ambiguous nor highly technical
• finding that construction of the terms of the ’766 Patent, including “prongs,” “elongated main member,” and “essentially disposed parallel” did not require a Markman hearing because the terms were “neither ambiguous nor highly technical”
• “Accordingly, the court constructs the phrase ‘essentially disposed parallel’ to mean something close to being parallel, but with some deviation.”
• which will be discussed in further detail below

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).