Neomagic Corporation v. Trident Microsystems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the district court erred by examining the accused device before it construed the term “power supply” to mean that it must supply a constant voltage, which would exclude the accused device
• reiterating well-settled principle that “claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device”
• \It is well settled that claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device.\
• “It is well settled that claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device.”
• “It is elementary that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentia-ry support.’ ”
• “It is 16 elementary that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).