Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that claimed weight percentage ranges for elements comprising “stainless steel” were properly construed as “strict numerical boundaries” under Jeneric
• stating that “[t]he court believes ... that its independent obligation to construe patent claim terms includes construction of terms for which the parties have agreed on a construction” and refusing to accept some of the parties agreed constructions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lam Research Corp. v. Schunk Semiconductor
  N.D. California· 2014-08-22· cited 10×
• Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.
  N.D. Iowa· 2007-09-19· cited 4×
• Serverside Group Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Technologies, L.L.C.
  N.D. Iowa· 2013-03-04· cited 2×
• Transamerica Life Insurance v. Lincoln National Life Insurance
  N.D. Iowa· 2010-03-08

Cites

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

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 3,226×
• Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-04-05· cited 2,940×
• Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-07-25· cited 2,428×
• Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
  Supreme Court· 1997-03-03· cited 1,430×
• Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-10-16· cited 787×
• Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)
  Federal Circuit· 2004-08-11· cited 753×
• Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-11-18· cited 719×
• Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medrad, Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2004-02-11· cited 685×
• Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
  Supreme Court· 2002-05-28· cited 669×
• Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-09-09· cited 607×
• Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-03-14· cited 465×
• Rhodia Chimie & Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-04-11· cited 250×
• Rexnord Corporation v. The Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-11-15· cited 249×
• Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-01-28· cited 236×
• Pall Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Micron Separations, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-10-24· cited 224×
• Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1942-03-02· cited 221×
• Zmi Corporation v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1988-04-22· cited 185×
• Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc. And Randall C. Fowler
  Federal Circuit· 1998-07-02· cited 172×
• Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-09-01· cited 165×