Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• listing a pointless remand as a reason to address forfeited argument
• “As it relates to claim construction, the doctrine [of waiver] has been applied to preclude a party from adopting a new claim construction position on appeal.”
• “[I]n looking to the specification to construe claim terms, care must be taken to avoid reading limitations appearing in the specification into the claims.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “As it relates to claim construction, the doctrine [of waiver] has Case: 20-1475 Document: 76 Page: 19 Filed: 05/28/2021 BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. ITC 19 been applied to preclude a party from adopting a new claim construction position on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

62 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Nalco Company v. Chem-Mod, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2018-02-27· cited 242×
• Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2002-10-16· cited 63×
• Ericsson Inc. v. Tcl Communication Technology
  Federal Circuit· 2020-04-14· cited 58×
• HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG
  Federal Circuit· 2012-01-30· cited 46×
• Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-08-22· cited 43×
• Seabed Geosolutions (Us) Inc. v. Magseis Ff LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2021-08-11· cited 37×
• ENOVSYS LLC v. Nextel Communications, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-08-03· cited 28×
• Ninestar Technology Co. v. International Trade Commission
  Federal Circuit· 2012-02-08· cited 26×
• Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp.
  N.D. New York· 2004-08-27· cited 24×
• Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-08-17· cited 23×
• The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Technologies, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2019-12-17· cited 16×
• Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-12-14· cited 15×
• D'Agostino v. Mastercard International Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-12-22· cited 8×
• Rosen Entertainment Systems, LP v. Eiger Vision
  C.D. California· 2004-10-12· cited 7×
• Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A.
  Federal Circuit· 2023-06-27· cited 7×
• Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2002-06-26· cited 6×
• CBT FLINT PARTNERS, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.
  N.D. Georgia· 2008-07-10· cited 5×
• Abbott GmbH & Co. KG v. Yeda Research & Development Co.
  District of Columbia· 2007-06-28· cited 5×
• Spotless Enterprises, Inc. v. a & E Products Group L.P.
  E.D. New York· 2003-12-01· cited 5×
• Brookhill-Wilk 1, L.L.C. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2001-11-08· cited 4×

Cites

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

• Singleton v. Wulff
  Supreme Court· 1976-07-01· cited 3,831×
• 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×
• Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 1,536×
• Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-10-16· cited 787×
• Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-09-09· cited 607×
• Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 1999-06-23· cited 590×
• Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1983-07-25· cited 538×
• Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1997-09-18· cited 434×
• Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1995-05-23· cited 305×
• Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1993-08-24· cited 304×
• White v. Dunbar
  Supreme Court· 1886-11-15· cited 270×
• Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. Bp Chemicals Limited and Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-03-19· cited 268×
• Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1992-01-09· cited 260×
• Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Laboratories Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1999-01-08· cited 260×
• Becton Dickinson and Company v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1990-12-13· cited 257×
• Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-07-13· cited 234×
• Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., Robert D. Keenum, and Keenum, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1989-10-06· cited 205×
• Elkay Manufacturing Co. v. Ebco Manufacturing Co.
  Federal Circuit· 1999-09-15· cited 197×