Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal Ig Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are factual issues
• Noting that the same claim terms “cannot be interpreted differently in different claims because claim terms must be interpreted consistently.”
• determining that \[a]rguments and amendments made during the prosecution of a patent application . . . as well as the specification and other claims must be examined to determine the meaning of terms in a claim\ (emphasis added)
• describing such a'ploy by the patentee as treating the claims as a “nose of wax”
• distinguishing prosecution history’s mere relevance to claim construction from prosecution history estoppel in the context of the doctrine of equivalents
• describing such a ploy by the patentee as treating the claims as a “nose of wax”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).