Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs Corporation

Oral argument

• Argued

  42 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that passages referring to the preferred embodiment cannot be read into the claim without some “hook”
• noting that what the “inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim” is relevant in claim construction
• explaining that where “a patent applicant has elected to be a lexicographer by providing an explicit definition in the specification for a claim term,” then “the definition selected by the patent applicant controls”
• approving the use of dictionaries with proper respect for the role of intrinsic evidence
• reciting the familiar maxim that “one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description”
• “[A] common meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of fealty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).