Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Technologies 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 the patent’s inclusion of the word “preferably” indicates the description in the patent is one mere iteration of the invention
• explaining that an invention will only be limited to its preferred embodiment when “the patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the claims to that embodiment”
• “[W]e have rejected the contention that it is proper to limit the claims to the single disclosed em- bodiment absent a clear expression of intent to limit the claims’ scope.”
• “We find nothing in the ‘374 patent’s preferred embodiments or the remainder of the specification that evinces a clear intention to restrict the invention’s communications to those initiated by the server.”
• Such “[s]ubsidiary factual determinations based on extrinsic evidence are reviewed for clear error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).