Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• “[The patentee’s] arguments clearly and unmistakably represented to the examiner and the Board that [the pro- cess] . . . imparted the distinct structural characteristics upon [the patentee’s] claimed [product].”
• “[The patentee’s] arguments clearly and unmistakably represented to the examiner and the Board that [the pro- cess] . . . imparted the distinct structural characteristics upon [the patentee’s] claimed [product].”
• “In determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not the process of making it.” (quoting Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009))
• “But [applicant] is bound by the arguments that it made before the examiner and before the Board. It does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.”’
• “But [applicant] is bound by the arguments that it made before the examiner and before the Board. It does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).