Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.

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 claim language fully supports” the court’s claim construction and that the construction was further supported by the specification de- scribing the term as part of the “present invention” that was disclosed in every embodiment
• explaining that when a patent “describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention”
• determining that no reasonable jury could find infringement based on sales materials describing the device as having two disks, where it was clear that the device was not constructed from two physically separate disks or conjoint disks
• finding disclosures in the Summary of the Invention limiting where directed to “[t]he present invention”
• finding disclosures in the Summary of the Invention limiting where directed to \[t]he present invention\
• affirming a narrow claims construction where “the district court's construction is faithful to the ordinary meaning of the language of claim 1”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).