Springs Window Fashions Lp, Shade-O-Matic Ltd., and Manor Tec, Inc. v. Novo Industries, L.P., Defendant-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that use of “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard did not negate prosecution disclaimer, due to public notice function
• holding that though “it is not clear from the record why the examiner allowed the claims,” the examiner’s reasons for allowance “do not negate the effect of the applicant’s disclaimer”
• “the fact that UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’ Case No. 2:20-CV-02299-CAS (ska
• “The public notice function of a patent and its prosecution history requires that a patentee be held to what he declares during the prosecution of his patent.”
• “The public notice function of a patent and its prosecution history requires that a patentee be held to what he declares during the prosecution of his patent.”
• “the fact that UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’ Case No. 2:20-CV-02299-CAS (SKx) Date April 12, 2021 2:20-CV-02250-CAS (SKx

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).