Rhodia Chimie & Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc.

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 prosecution history’s purpose “is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution” in order to prevent a term from being construed one way in the application and a different way against an accused infringer
• narrowing amendment to address issues raised during prosecution was not tangential to an equivalent having that characteristic
• construing claim to require unrecited feature where applicant told examiner that such feature “must be used” (emphasis added)
• narrowing amendment to address issues raised during prosecution was not tangential to an equivalent having that characteristic
• construing second term after vacating summary judgment of noninfringement under first term, where “the construction of this second disputed term was not dis-positive to the district court’s decision, but may be relevant on remand”
• \The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to 'exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).