Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• the inventor may act as his own lexicographer so long as the specification clearly provides any definition that differs from the ordinary meaning
• view that infringement may be found where accused device is equivalent “overall” to claimed invention rejected by Federal Circuit
• “Where an inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure.” (citation omitted)
• the mere purchase of the goods and services of both parties by the same institution does not, by itself, establish similarity of trade channels or overlap of customers
• the mere purchase of the goods and services of both parties by the same institution does not, by itself, establish similarity of trade channels or overlap of customers
• “[E]ven when there is an overlap in purchasing persons due to a common purchasing agent, such an agent is not necessarily a ‘relevant person’ for determining likelihood of confusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).