Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the specification’s use of the “ ‘present invention’ ” imposed a “clear[ ] and unmistakable]” limitation upon the claimed invention
• concluding that the term “repetitive motion pacing system for pacing a user” in the preamble to claim 25 of a challenged patent was limiting in part because another claim in the patent referred to “[t]he repetitive motion pacing system of claim 25” (alteration in original)
• noting that the claim construction dispute in that case “turn[ed] on whether the preamble to claim 25 is limiting and on the construction of a ‘repetitive motion pacing system’ as recited in the preamble”
• “Because the preamble terms ... provide antecedent basis for and are necessary to understand positive limitations in the body of claims ..., we hold that the preamble to claim 25 is limiting.”
• “Just because an embodiment does not expressly disclose a feature does not mean that embodiment excludes that feature”’
• “[W]here the patent describes multiple embodiments, every claim does not need to cover every embodiment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).