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).

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