Hayes v. Atkinson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that district courts should only construe claim limitations where “the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim”
• concluding that the trial court is required to resolve disputes regarding the scope of the asserted claims
• holding that “[w]hen the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”
• recognizing that “district courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims”
• holding that a court need not construe a claim if it is understandable to a layperson and adopting the plain and ordinary meaning would resolve the dispute
• holding that a court need not construe a claim if it is understandable to a layperson and adopting the plain and ordinary meaning would resolve the dispute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).