Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• defining “unit” to include separate physical structures where the specification explicitly stated that the claimed invention “may even comprise multiple structures”
• rejecting a construction that was “no more or less clear” than the term ‘real-time’ itself, as it was “unhelpful in ascertaining the meaning of ‘real time’”
• “Construing a non- functional term in an apparatus claim in a way that makes direct infringement turn on the use to which an accused apparatus is later put . . . is inconsistent with the notice function central to the patent system.”
• “We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the 13 claims should be given the same meaning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different 23 portions of the claims should be given the same meaning.” (internal quotation marks 24 omitted)
• “We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different mean- ings at different portions of the claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).