Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates International, 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 evidence of discussions between named inventor and putative co-inventor concerning subject matter of claimed invention was insufficient to establish coinventorship
• holding that it is appropriate to apply the plain and ordinary meaning to claim terms when those terms are not expressly defined in the patent and there is nothing to suggest that a special meaning was intended
• explaining that a preamble is generally not construed as limiting if it is “merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim”
• explaining that a preamble is generally not construed as limiting if it is “merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim”
• explaining that “the ordinary meaning of the terms ‘computer’ and ‘computer system’” are “not limited to a single, stand-alone computer or workstation”
• declining to find the pre- amble limiting, despite the fact that the preamble used dif- ferent language from the claim body

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).