Skip to main content
Federal Circuit· 1/30/2012

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

Citations

  • 667 F.3d 1270
  • 101 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1518
  • 2012 WL 254804
  • 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1694

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).

Judges: Bryson, Linn, O'Malley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.