Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because two patents in the same family used different claim language there was \no reason to construe the terms similarly\
• holding that because two patents in the same family used different claim language there was \no reason to construe the terms similarly\
• recognizing that a court may rely on extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions, expert testimony, treatises, and the prosecution history of related patents, so long as it does not contradict the patent documents
• holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite
• holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite
• explaining that “construing the independent claim to exclude material covered by the dependent claim.would be inconsistent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).