Outagamie Cnty. v. C. A.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an inventor may act as its own lexicographer by offering a definition of specific terms in either the written description or the prosecution history
• holding that, even though the specification mentioned that it was highly desirable to be free to rotate greater than 360 degrees, the ability to rotate greater than 360 degrees was not required to perform the claimed function and therefore was superfluous to the claim construction
• affirming district court’s grant of a reasonable royalty the defendant argued covered its profits
• finding no disclaimer where applicant’s statements distinguished on basis of terminology not found in disputed claim term
• finding patent applicant’s “statements in the prosecution history [were] subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, they [did] not constitute clear and unmistakable” disclaimer such as would warrant departure from ordinary meaning of claim term
• claim function of “rotating said lamp unit in a horizontal direction” did not include limitation of rotating through at least 360 .

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).