Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Net2phone, 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 “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”
• noting that the specification referred to transmitting data over a phone line roughly two dozen times and never suggested transmitting data through the use of a packet switched network
• statement made during prosecution of related patent operated as a disclaimer with respect to a later-issued patent
• “[T]he claims must be must be interpreted in light of the specification, . . . which repeatedly and consistently describes [the systems].”
• “Our broader interpretation of the term ‘headers’ does not exclude the use of the headers disclosed in the preferred embodiment; it simply does not require their use.”
• statements made by the patentee in the prosecution of the patent application as to the scope of the invention may be considered when deciding the meaning of the claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

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

• C.R. Bard, Inc. And Davol Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-10-29· cited 332×
• Ntp, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-02· cited 302×
• Rhodia Chimie & Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-04-11· cited 250×
• Datamize, L.L.C. v. Plumtree Software, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-05· cited 220×
• Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-04-25· cited 213×
• Seachange International, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-06-29· cited 205×
• Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2016-02-02· cited 200×
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-06-18· cited 192×
• Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-09-26· cited 186×
• Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2007-01-26· cited 124×
• Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-03-21· cited 122×
• MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-01-24· cited 108×
• Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-09-26· cited 91×
• Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-08-24· cited 82×
• The Gillette Company v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-06-20· cited 72×
• Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2021-03-01· cited 71×
• TIP Systems, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-06-18· cited 69×
• Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biogenex Laboratories, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-12-29· cited 67×
• Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership
  Federal Circuit· 2015-02-12· cited 63×
• Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc. v. Cytogen, Inc. And C.R. Bard, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-06-23· cited 58×

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• 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×
• Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1998-09-09· cited 607×
• United States v. Adams
  Supreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 544×
• Ccs Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation and Its Division Life Fitness
  Federal Circuit· 2002-05-30· cited 492×
• Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-03-14· cited 465×
• E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips 66 Company, and Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants
  Federal Circuit· 1988-06-15· cited 281×
• Elkay Manufacturing Co. v. Ebco Manufacturing Co.
  Federal Circuit· 1999-09-15· cited 197×
• John D. Watts v. Xl Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-11-14· cited 193×
• Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1991-10-03· cited 174×
• Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
  Federal Circuit· 2003-09-22· cited 137×
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States Gypsum Company and L&w Supply Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1999-11-01· cited 105×
• Bert O. Jonsson, Besam Ab and Besam, Inc. v. The Stanley Works, the Stanley Works v. Besam, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1990-05-11· cited 104×
• Slimfold Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Kinkead Industries, Inc. And United States Gypsum Company, Defendants
  Federal Circuit· 1987-01-21· cited 85×
• Invitrogen Corporation v. Biocrest Manufacturing, L.P., Stratagene Holding Corporation and Stratagene, Inc., Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2003-05-07· cited 71×
• Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc. v. Morehouse Industries, Inc. (Now Summa Corporation), Kvp Acquisition Corp. And Kvp Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1998-05-05· cited 53×
• Schwing Gmbh v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft and Putzmeister, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-10-31· cited 48×
• Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-07-07· cited 37×