Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[i]n claim construction, this court gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification”
• holding that “the prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction”
• stating in claim construction, the court “gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification”
• stating in claim construction, the court “gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification”
• stating in claim construction, the court “gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification”
• stating in claim construction, the court “gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).