Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the inconsistent dictionary definition must be rejected” if the specification rebuts the presumption of ordinary and customary meaning
• noting that \the inconsistent dictionary definition must be rejected\ if the specification rebuts the presumption of ordinary and customary meaning
• holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user’s testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application
• noting that prosecution history of unrelated patent \sheds no light\ on proper interpretation of patent at issue
• noting that it is proper to “discern the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to the words themselves” before consulting the intrinsic evidence
• holding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony of a prior public use because an unissued patent application was the only evidence of events prior to or contemporaneous with invention

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).