Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc. v. Morehouse Industries, Inc. (Now Summa Corporation), Kvp Acquisition Corp. And Kvp Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it was proper to consider the prosecution histories of two related re-examination patents originating from the same parent, to determine the meaning of a term used in both patents
• noting that it was proper to consider the prosecution histories of two related re-examination patents originating from the same parent, to determine the meaning of a term used in both patents
• applying the prosecution histories of two sibling patents, which shared a common written description, to one another
• interpreting “driving surface” in light of - the disclosed examples in the specification as limited to flat surfaces although there was no claim language expressly reciting that limitation
• noninfringement where patentee recited disputed limitation in the summary of the invention
• \The fact that an examiner placed no reliance on an applicant's statement distinguishing prior art does not mean that the statement is inconsequential for purposes of claim construction.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).