Rexnord Corporation v. The Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that claim terms must be examined in light of the specification and the prosecution history
• explaining that claim terms must be examined in light of the specification and the prosecution history
• holding that patentee can choose to be his or her own lexicographer
• stating the general rule that “a claim term should be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent”
• relying on an inventor’s “careful” and “consistent” use of phrases throughout the specification identifying preferred embodiments 28 to find that an inventor has described an invention that encompasses more than one embodiment
• declining to limit the claim language to a preferred embodiment where “‘[t]he inventor was careful to consistently use phrases throughout the written description” to confirm that the invention could be practiced or carried out in various ways

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).