Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Cross

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the written description of the preferred embodiments can set forth more than one definition of a claim term
• holding that courts 19 should not rely on extrinsic evidence to contradict a meaning that is clear from the intrinsic 20 evidence
• stating district court’s reliance on “expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence solely to help it understand the underlying technology” is not improper
• finding the preamble limiting where it claimed a method or apparatus \for producing on a photoreceptor an image of generated shapes made up of spots\ and the claim body used the phrase \generated shapes\
• finding the preamble “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim because terms from the body of the claim “c[ould] only be understood in the context of the preamble statement”
• finding the preamble “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim because terms from the body of the claim “c[ould] only be understood in the context of the preamble statement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).