Research Plastics, Inc. v. Federal Packaging Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that patentee could have narrowed the claim in a more limited fashion, but chose not to, conceding the ground between
• narrowing amendment regarding arrangement of ribs in a tube was not tangential because “the purpose of the amendment was to avoid rejection based on rib placement”
• “ ‘The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to “exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.” ’ ”
• “It is presumed that the person of ordinary skill in the art read the claim in the context of the entire patent, including the specification, not confining his understanding to the claim at issue.”
• “[C]laim terms are presumed to be used consistently throughout the patent, such that the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.”
• one canon of claim construction is that “claim terms are presumed to be used consistently throughout the patent, such that the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).