Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to limit claims to what is thought to be the invention contemplated by the inventors
• declining to limit claims to what is thought to be the invention contemplated by the inventors
• “The applicant deleted this requirement from the claims. . . . Regardless of why LMA amended its claims, we agree with LMA that it would be improper to read [that re- quirement] back into the [claim].”
• “[D]efendant’s insistence upon this court’s reading back into the claims limitations which were originally there and were removed during prosecution of the application through the Patent Office cannot be permitted.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-04-03· cited 46×
• Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-07-31· cited 45×
• Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-02-04· cited 37×
• Teleflex Medical Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
  Ninth Circuit· 2017-03-21· cited 14×
• Intellicheck Mobilisa, Inc. v. Wizz Systems, LLC
  W.D. Washington· 2016-03-28· cited 6×
• Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2011-09-08· cited 6×
• Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2016-04-29· cited 4×
• Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-10-31· cited 3×
• ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2011-04-07· cited 2×
• Ergo Licensing LLP v. Carefusion 303, Inc.
  D. Maine· 2010-12-28· cited 2×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• 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×
• Ccs Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation and Its Division Life Fitness
  Federal Circuit· 2002-05-30· cited 492×
• Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments Company
  Federal Circuit· 1991-07-29· cited 365×
• Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-06-04· cited 124×
• ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-03-13· cited 110×
• Kara Technology Inc. v. stamps.com Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-09-24· cited 88×
• IMMUNOCEPT, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP
  Federal Circuit· 2007-10-15· cited 78×
• Kistler Instrumente AG v. United States
  Court of Claims· 1980-06-18· cited 15×