Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that inventors’ definition of a claim term 14 SKINMEDICA INC v. HISTOGEN INC controls when they “clearly express an intent” to redefine a term used in the claims
• holding that, the term “partially” should not be interpreted inconsistent with its ordinary meaning to include “totally” in order to encompass all of the disclosed embodiments unless the applicant had acted as his own lexicographer to alter the term’s ordinary meaning
• holding that the term “partially” should not be interpreted inconsistent with its ordinary meaning to include “totally” in order to encompass all of the disclosed embodiments, unless the applicant had acted as his own lexicographer to alter the term’s ordinary meaning
• finding that “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘partially’ excludes ‘totally’” by relying on dictionary definitions
• cautioning against interpret- ing a claim term in a way that excludes disclosed embod- iments
• affirming the trial court’s reliance on extrinsic evidence where the intrin- sic record was not sufficiently clear to determine the plain meaning of a claim limitation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).