HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[c]laim language and the specification generally carry greater weight than the prosecution history”
• finding that “further comprising” signals something “additional”
• processor and transceiver Case: 20-1589 Document: 61 Page: 16 Filed: 07/27/2021 16 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION amounted to “nothing more than a general-purpose com- puter”
• “[T]he drafter likely would have followed the recitation of the mobile station in paragraph 7 with ‘further comprising’ instead of ‘comprising’ to signal that additional modification would be attached to the mobile station.”
• “Modi- fiers should be placed next to the words they modify.”
• the claim element “[a] mobile station for use with a network . . . that achieves a handover... by: □□□ storing link data . . .” does not require that the network take the action of storing link data

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• United States v. Lavabit, LLC.
  Fourth Circuit· 2014-04-16· cited 231×
• Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-04-09· cited 127×
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-04-09· cited 83×
• Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
  Federal Circuit· 2018-04-13· cited 74×
• Ericsson Inc. v. Tcl Communication Technology
  Federal Circuit· 2020-04-14· cited 58×
• Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2017-10-30· cited 55×
• Ultimatepointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co Ltd
  Federal Circuit· 2016-03-01· cited 51×
• Polara Engineering Inc v. Campbell Company
  Federal Circuit· 2018-07-10· cited 36×
• Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2021-03-02· cited 24×
• Am General, LLC v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2014-05-22· cited 22×
• Nobel Biocare Services Ag v. Instradent USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-09-13· cited 21×
• United States v. Fernandez-Jorge
  First Circuit· 2018-06-26· cited 13×
• Almanza v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2019-08-21· cited 11×
• Ipcom Gmbh & Co. v. Htc Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2017-07-07· cited 8×
• Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.
  N.D. California· 2015-12-04· cited 5×
• Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
  E.D. Virginia· 2013-09-25· cited 4×
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2014-08-15· cited 3×
• SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2013-04-11· cited 3×
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel Cns Pharmaceuticals, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2023-02-24· cited 3×
• In Re: Under Seal
  Fourth Circuit· 2014-04-16

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Singleton v. Wulff
  Supreme Court· 1976-07-01· cited 3,831×
• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-07-25· cited 2,428×
• Wms Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology
  Federal Circuit· 1999-09-17· cited 317×
• United States v. Kenneth Joe Whitten, John Elmer Gaiefsky, Jack Wayne Gish, Richard Lawrence Shimel
  Ninth Circuit· 1983-05-25· cited 293×
• Charles PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McLEMORE’S WHOLESALE & RETAIL STORES, a Louisiana Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
  Fifth Circuit· 1981-09-04· cited 220×
• Shirley FERRILL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE PARKER GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant
  Eleventh Circuit· 1999-02-26· cited 213×
• Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust
  Tenth Circuit· 1993-06-17· cited 190×
• Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-10-10· cited 175×
• Webb v. City of Philadelphia
  Third Circuit· 2009-04-07· cited 173×
• National Association of Social Workers v. John B. Harwood
  First Circuit· 1995-11-13· cited 171×
• Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corporation v. Elekta Ab, Elekta Instrument Ab, Elekta Instruments, Inc., and Elekta Oncology Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-10-30· cited 163×
• Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology & IGT
  Federal Circuit· 2008-03-28· cited 155×
• Intel Corporation v. Via Technologies, Inc., a California Corporation, via Technologies, Inc., a Taiwan Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2003-02-14· cited 143×
• Harris Corporation v. Ericsson, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-05· cited 139×
• William A. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. And Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Defendants-Cross-Appellants
  Federal Circuit· 2001-05-24· cited 139×
• Ipxl Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-11-21· cited 132×
• Sigmon Fuel Company v. Tennessee Valley Authority
  Sixth Circuit· 1985-02-04· cited 109×
• Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-04-01· cited 103×
• Kathy L. Lavoie, Formerly Known as Kathy L. Labelle v. Pacific Press & Shear Company, a Division of Canron Corp., and Canron Corp.
  Second Circuit· 1992-09-10· cited 100×

Other cases named HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG
  District of Columbia· 2009-12-03· cited 6×
• Htc Corp. v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kg
  District of Columbia· 2010-08-25· cited 3×
• HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG
  District of Columbia· 2012-03-21· cited 2×
• Htc Corp. v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kg
  District of Columbia· 2010-11-23· cited 1×
• HTC Corp. v. IPCom GMBH & Co., KG
  District of Columbia· 2012-08-28· cited 1×
• HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG
  Federal Circuit· 2014-01-06
• HTC Corp. v. IPCom GMBH & Co., KG
  District of Columbia· 2012-08-28