On Demand MacHine Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. Ingram Industries, Inc. And Lightning Source, Inc., and amazon.com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “providing means for a customer to visually re- view” nested in a method claim was a means-plus-function term
• ““[C]laims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.”
• \[C]laims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.\
• “[C]laims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.”
• “[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is described as the advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow explicitly a different scope.”
• “[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is described as the advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow explicitly a different scope.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).