Honeywell Inc. v. Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. And U.S. Jvc Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim need not be construed in a manner that would lead to the solution of both prior art problems discussed in the written description
• recognizing that “a definition offered during prosecution [that] is made in response to a rejection” can “limit[] the scope of the claim, preventing the patentee from later recapturing what was previously surrendered”
• declining to apply SciMed and holding that absent a clear disclaimer of claim scope, disadvantages of the prior art, as discussed by the specifications of any patents-in-suit, cannot limit claim scope
• “[A] patentee may define a claim term . . . in the prosecution history.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).